"culking" and cyclic plans - effective?

neandermagnon

Hi, just want to get some informed opinions regarding "culking" and cyclic plans (i.e. alternating short surplus and deficit phases), as opposed to traditional bulks and cuts

my goals: to get to 18-20% body fat - well it's how I look that I'm after more than the actual numbers, but based on pics what I want is around those numbers. I also want to get really strong, and to be honest this is more important to me than how I look. on the other hand, I tend to store fat around my waist, i.e. the least healthy place for it (and least attractive IMO) - so I do want to get rid of that, and I don't really want to add any more there (which would happen in a traditional bulking phase.... i used to be obese, and when i was, a lot of it was around my middle, so that is where I think it's likely to go on again if I gain some back again). I also want to gain 4-5lb lean body mass, because I've estimated this is what I lost while I was losing fat (although it was hard to get a reliable measure of my body fat percentage when I was obese, so I can't say for sure that I lost that much LBM in the process)

i know some people who've had success following a programme where you have 3 cutting days, then 3 bulking days. i.e. +/- 15% TDEE for each, what puzzles me about that a bit is that it's easier to lose fat than gain muscle, so I'm not sure that a 1:1 ratio would be quite right. Others do variations on that, i.e. different numbers of cutting or bulking days. I was wondering about 4 cutting then 2-3 bulking days.

How effective are these kinds of programmes in terms of real body re-composition? Would the cutting days compromise strength gains compared to traditional bulking? In traditional bulking/cutting phases, do people experience strength loss as a result of cutting? Personally, I did experience this while I was in a prolonged deficit from losing fat (i.e. going from obese to a healthy bf%), when I switched to maintenance and just eating decent meals when I was hungry, I made really fast gains in strength and also lean body mass (I think it was some of what I'd lost while losing fat). Do the bulking days really lead to gains in LBM and not fat? Would you just end up "freewheeling" and staying in the same place, i.e. losing fat then gaining it again? How does it compare to doing a weightlifting programme while eating at TDEE every day?

Sorry for all the questions!! Just need reliable info and people's own experiences to determine what the best course of action for myself is. Staying in a prolongued deficit isn't good for me because it seemed to be affecting my mental health for the worse, and I experienced loss of strength too, which I don't want. But then I do want a lower body fat percentage.....??

Sarauk2sf

Tagging to respond to later.

_SABOTEUR_

Hi, I have tried this before but the calorie difference between bulk and cut days was too much for me to manage. I used www.1percentedge.com/ifcalc/ which has various options and sets out your macros for you as well. It's a useful tool if you decide to go down that route.

I would say that if gaining strength is you main concern, you can gain strength without gaining muscle (bulking). So maybe it would be better for you to stay in a small deficit (maybe 200-300 cals per day below TDEE) and do a progressive weight training program where you are increasing the weight every session or every week so your strength increases (although you may already be doing this as your profile says you lift heavy).

How big of a calorie deficit were you creating before when it was having a negative effect on your wellbeing?

lacurandera1

Bumping bc I'm curious about the culk, too.

danasings

Also curious about this, bumping to follow.

Will_Thrust_For_Candy

bump

seena511

bump

xidia

Bump

mustgetmuscles1

I really like this article and the comments from Lyle McDonald and Alan Aragon in the comments section.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html

lylemcd on December 29th, 2009 2:30 pm

Mike: I think that is more akin to the situation I described above: someone who was in great shape who gets out of shape and then gets back into shape. But they aren’t improving upon their previous season’s shape. They are just getting back to where they were before they got fat and out of shape in the ‘off-season’.
Eric: I think if you look at culking at Alan has it set up, it’s simply a very very very mild version of some of the more extreme EOD/IF stuff. A bit of a surplus on weights days a bit of a deficit (or maintenance) on non-weights days with some cardio. As well, if you look at the time frames involved….it takes forever to achieve what I think can be done much faster with more direct/focused approaches. So fine in 2 years you end up 10 lbs muscle heavier and 10 lbs fat loss lighter. Which you could do in maybe 30 weeks if you dieted and gained in alternating fashion. And which certainly isn’t what people are hoping for when they ask about ‘gaining muscle while losing fat’ (usually they want to shift 10-20 lbs fat into 10-20 lbs muscle in a 10-20 week period or some absurdist nonsense).

Alan Aragon on December 29th, 2009 2:56 pm

The level of aggressiveness of the method of surplus or deficit depends on the individual’s goals & current status. Some folks don’t necessarily care about not getting significanty fatter while bulking, but a good portion of my clientele wants to (or in some cases, like actors & models) need to look good all year round. Thus the alternation of looking somewhat chubby while bulking before leaning down really isn’t an option. On the other hand, I think that people in general think I’m opposed to putting on any fat at all while bulking, or they think I’m not into the idea of separate cutting or bulking cycles, which isn’t true. With some clients, I choose a very specific & aggressive focus. For example, I’m building a plan for a natural BBing champ that’s specifically geared toward off-season gains. After that phase is done, it’s cutting time. With others, it’s more of the culking/recomp scenario involving less agressive surpluses or deficits. Not everyone gets the same treatment, because everyone is at a different place in their development, and people’s goals/objectives differ. One thing I want to get clear is that I’m not opposed to traditional cutting & bulking alternation, it’s actually best for some, and I do go that route with certain client cases that it’s well suited for. And I don’t disagree that the culking effect happens to a more pronounced degree in beginners with more fat to lose & more muscle to gain.

neandermagnon

Hi, I have tried this before but the calorie difference between bulk and cut days was too much for me to manage. I used www.1percentedge.com/ifcalc/ which has various options and sets out your macros for you as well. It's a useful tool if you decide to go down that route.

I would say that if gaining strength is you main concern, you can gain strength without gaining muscle (bulking). So maybe it would be better for you to stay in a small deficit (maybe 200-300 cals per day below TDEE) and do a progressive weight training program where you are increasing the weight every session or every week so your strength increases (although you may already be doing this as your profile says you lift heavy).

How big of a calorie deficit were you creating before when it was having a negative effect on your wellbeing?

it really wasn't that big a deficit, only about 300 below TDEE, I think the problem was maybe I was in that deficit for way too long. I was losing fat at an average of 0.5-1lb a week, apart from one week where I lost 3lb due to not eating properly due to mental health issues. I was losing slightly less than the calories predicted, but other than my workouts I was very sedentary (I'm more active these days). I was also having TDEE days, I think two a week. So really not an aggressive deficit at all. I was seeing a progressive loss in strength, like going from 1 minute planks to 45 second plans, not being able to manage my usual number of reps. I used to live in Saudi (hence being so sedentary there is nothing to do in Saudi and it's way too hot to do very much), since I moved to Bahrain, initially I stopped following my eating plan because of the hassle of moving to another country, so was just eating instinctively, and my metabolism had some kind of reset going on, and when I returned to working out with weights, I made very fast progress in terms of strength, and I also gained some lean mass, which I think was a muscle memory gain. I had lost LBM in Saudi, because my LBM was under 100lb, I think it went as low as 96 or 97lb. It's currently about 100-101lb, and most of the time when I was losing the fat from before, my LBM was over 100, although how much it was at the start is impossible to tell because I got wildly different body fat percentages from different methods (28% by calipers, 44% navy formula) then as I got down towards 25% these methods and another circumference method all gave very close results and at that point my LBM was 100lb+, and I wasn't seeing any loss of strength at that point, that came later. So I think probably I just stayed in deficit for too long, rather than it being an aggressive deficit. My current bf% is about 22/23, and it's not been lower than around 22% so maybe something went wrong going from 25% to 22%, i.e. loss of lean body mass and strength. Interesting because I didn't actually realise that until I typed this just now. Kind of weird how stuff falls into place. My current LBM is around 100/101lb.

Interestingly, the last couple of days I've been eating at TDEE - 15% (based on my data from here and in Saudi, plus the Katch McArdle formula) but I've been really hungry at that number of calories (1570)... in Saudi I wasn't hungry on 1500 cal/day, so maybe my TDEE is higher now than I thought it was before. I have tried tracking what I eat when I'm not trying to stick to a calorie goal, and it's come to around 1800-1900 cals, but I'm wondering if the act of tracking is making me "be good" and eat less than when I'm not even tracking. So I'm thinking of eating 1850 cals/day for a couple of weeks (while tracking) and see what happens to my weight. If it is a deficit it'll be a very small one (i.e. tiny amounts of fat loss and negligible LBM loss). But it'll confirm whether this is really my TDEE or not.


@mustgetmuscles... so he's saying that traditional bulking and cutting is quicker than culking, and the main disadvantage is if you don't want to look chubby while bulking.... very interesting article and comments though. And the issue about the two not being equal came up, i.e. losing fat and gaining muscle pound for pound (other than in beginners/muscle memory situations) so that begs the question about equal short phases of TDEE +/- the same %.

I am very interested to hear further responses on all of this.

The_Enginerd

Bumping to follow.

Chief_Rocka

Whether you can recomp depends on how experienced you are and how fat you are (fat newbs are really the only ones that can do it).

Other than that, what's going on with your body fat is primarily driven by average caloric balance over time, rather than how much you eat on one particular day. It takes time for the body to shift from net catabolism to net anabolism, it's not a "switch" you can turn on and off on a daily basis.

So cyclical dieting pretty much comes down to a matter of personal preference. If you want to lose fat, you still need a net deficit over time, and when you have a net deficit, you aren't adding muscle.

UsedToBeHusky

Bump

jofjltncb6

Bump as I'm wrestling with these concepts myself.

Sarauk2sf

Whether you can recomp depends on how experienced you are and how fat you are (fat newbs are really the only ones that can do it).

Other than that, what's going on with your body fat is primarily driven by average caloric balance over time, rather than how much you eat on one particular day. It takes time for the body to shift from net catabolism to net anabolism, it's not a "switch" you can turn on and off on a daily basis.

So cyclical dieting pretty much comes down to a matter of personal preference. If you want to lose fat, you still need a net deficit over time, and when you have a net deficit, you aren't adding muscle.

^^this is my view on it.

Also, your body takes time to digest, absorb and utilize food, which varies depending on your eating habits (timing, macro mix etc) - it is not a 'start from scratch' at the beginning of the day reset which imo, makes it very inefficient and very hard to sync up. The timing of workouts also impacts it.

Can you make some gains...yes, but imo, they are more by luck than judgement on the days where things 'fall right' - hence why I think it very inefficient. It is a personal thing as to whether its worth it as it is a lot of effort and manipulation to go through for the gains that may be made.

UsedToBeHusky

Whether you can recomp depends on how experienced you are and how fat you are (fat newbs are really the only ones that can do it).

Other than that, what's going on with your body fat is primarily driven by average caloric balance over time, rather than how much you eat on one particular day. It takes time for the body to shift from net catabolism to net anabolism, it's not a "switch" you can turn on and off on a daily basis.

So cyclical dieting pretty much comes down to a matter of personal preference. If you want to lose fat, you still need a net deficit over time, and when you have a net deficit, you aren't adding muscle.

^^this is my view on it.

Also, your body takes time to digest, absorb and utilize food, which varies depending on your eating habits (timing, macro mix etc) - it is not a 'start from scratch' at the beginning of the day reset which imo, makes it very inefficient and very hard to sync up. The timing of workouts also impacts it.

Can you make some gains...yes, but imo, they are more by luck than judgement on the days where things 'fall right' - hence why I think it very inefficient. It is a personal thing as to whether its worth it as it is a lot of effort and manipulation to go through for the gains that may be made.

Let's just say you are in a deficit over a three-week span. Is there any benefit to saving calories for lifting days or are the results relatively the same if you maintain a specific number of calories daily?

Sarauk2sf

Whether you can recomp depends on how experienced you are and how fat you are (fat newbs are really the only ones that can do it).

Other than that, what's going on with your body fat is primarily driven by average caloric balance over time, rather than how much you eat on one particular day. It takes time for the body to shift from net catabolism to net anabolism, it's not a "switch" you can turn on and off on a daily basis.

So cyclical dieting pretty much comes down to a matter of personal preference. If you want to lose fat, you still need a net deficit over time, and when you have a net deficit, you aren't adding muscle.

^^this is my view on it.

Also, your body takes time to digest, absorb and utilize food, which varies depending on your eating habits (timing, macro mix etc) - it is not a 'start from scratch' at the beginning of the day reset which imo, makes it very inefficient and very hard to sync up. The timing of workouts also impacts it.

Can you make some gains...yes, but imo, they are more by luck than judgement on the days where things 'fall right' - hence why I think it very inefficient. It is a personal thing as to whether its worth it as it is a lot of effort and manipulation to go through for the gains that may be made.

Let's just say you are in a deficit over a three-week span. Is there any benefit to saving calories for lifting days or are the results relatively the same if you maintain a specific number of calories daily?

Indirectly yes there is a benefit, imo, as you have more energy and therefore make those workouts more effective. YMMV.

UsedToBeHusky

Whether you can recomp depends on how experienced you are and how fat you are (fat newbs are really the only ones that can do it).

Other than that, what's going on with your body fat is primarily driven by average caloric balance over time, rather than how much you eat on one particular day. It takes time for the body to shift from net catabolism to net anabolism, it's not a "switch" you can turn on and off on a daily basis.

So cyclical dieting pretty much comes down to a matter of personal preference. If you want to lose fat, you still need a net deficit over time, and when you have a net deficit, you aren't adding muscle.

^^this is my view on it.

Also, your body takes time to digest, absorb and utilize food, which varies depending on your eating habits (timing, macro mix etc) - it is not a 'start from scratch' at the beginning of the day reset which imo, makes it very inefficient and very hard to sync up. The timing of workouts also impacts it.

Can you make some gains...yes, but imo, they are more by luck than judgement on the days where things 'fall right' - hence why I think it very inefficient. It is a personal thing as to whether its worth it as it is a lot of effort and manipulation to go through for the gains that may be made.

Let's just say you are in a deficit over a three-week span. Is there any benefit to saving calories for lifting days or are the results relatively the same if you maintain a specific number of calories daily?

Indirectly yes there is a benefit, imo, as you have more energy and therefore make those workouts more effective. YMMV.

That helps a lot! Thanks Sara!

SideSteel

Whether you can recomp depends on how experienced you are and how fat you are (fat newbs are really the only ones that can do it).

Other than that, what's going on with your body fat is primarily driven by average caloric balance over time, rather than how much you eat on one particular day. It takes time for the body to shift from net catabolism to net anabolism, it's not a "switch" you can turn on and off on a daily basis.

So cyclical dieting pretty much comes down to a matter of personal preference. If you want to lose fat, you still need a net deficit over time, and when you have a net deficit, you aren't adding muscle.

Pure anecdote but I think it can also be utilized in skinny-fat folks who aren't necessarily fatties. Probably largely due to noob gains.

The other issue that seems to exist (at least, it exists in my head right now) is that maintenance is a pretty hard target to hit. Recomping with the intent to recomp seems like it would require quite a bit of accuracy. It would seem to me that you're really doing a very slow bulk or a very slow cut depending on what side of maintenance you end up and by how much.

neandermagnon

Whether you can recomp depends on how experienced you are and how fat you are (fat newbs are really the only ones that can do it).

Other than that, what's going on with your body fat is primarily driven by average caloric balance over time, rather than how much you eat on one particular day. It takes time for the body to shift from net catabolism to net anabolism, it's not a "switch" you can turn on and off on a daily basis.

So cyclical dieting pretty much comes down to a matter of personal preference. If you want to lose fat, you still need a net deficit over time, and when you have a net deficit, you aren't adding muscle.

^^this is my view on it.

Also, your body takes time to digest, absorb and utilize food, which varies depending on your eating habits (timing, macro mix etc) - it is not a 'start from scratch' at the beginning of the day reset which imo, makes it very inefficient and very hard to sync up. The timing of workouts also impacts it.

Can you make some gains...yes, but imo, they are more by luck than judgement on the days where things 'fall right' - hence why I think it very inefficient. It is a personal thing as to whether its worth it as it is a lot of effort and manipulation to go through for the gains that may be made.

Thank you for the responses, very helpful. I'm not fat (healthy range bf%, a fair bit of room for improvement) or that much of a noob, although I'm not as strong as I was when I used to play ice hockey... actually I was 10lb heavier then, but no idea if I had any more lean body mass than I do now, as I was carrying too much fat (you can't out train a bad diet... but the extra fat was useful for checking people into the boards...)

Well anyway, for now I'm eating 1750 cals/day for at least a couple of weeks and seeing what happens, to see if this really is my maintenance calories level, as I'm far hungrier on 1580 cals/day than I was on 1500 cals/day when I lived in Saudi. I don't think I'm that much more active than I was, but maybe I am... I feel stronger and healthier now though. I'll make a decision in due course... at the moment it seems like traditional cutting and bulking is the way to go, but can't decide which I should do first....

Sarauk2sf

Whether you can recomp depends on how experienced you are and how fat you are (fat newbs are really the only ones that can do it).

Other than that, what's going on with your body fat is primarily driven by average caloric balance over time, rather than how much you eat on one particular day. It takes time for the body to shift from net catabolism to net anabolism, it's not a "switch" you can turn on and off on a daily basis.

So cyclical dieting pretty much comes down to a matter of personal preference. If you want to lose fat, you still need a net deficit over time, and when you have a net deficit, you aren't adding muscle.

^^this is my view on it.

Also, your body takes time to digest, absorb and utilize food, which varies depending on your eating habits (timing, macro mix etc) - it is not a 'start from scratch' at the beginning of the day reset which imo, makes it very inefficient and very hard to sync up. The timing of workouts also impacts it.

Can you make some gains...yes, but imo, they are more by luck than judgement on the days where things 'fall right' - hence why I think it very inefficient. It is a personal thing as to whether its worth it as it is a lot of effort and manipulation to go through for the gains that may be made.

Thank you for the responses, very helpful. I'm not fat (healthy range bf%, a fair bit of room for improvement) or that much of a noob, although I'm not as strong as I was when I used to play ice hockey... actually I was 10lb heavier then, but no idea if I had any more lean body mass than I do now, as I was carrying too much fat (you can't out train a bad diet... but the extra fat was useful for checking people into the boards...)

Well anyway, for now I'm eating 1750 cals/day for at least a couple of weeks and seeing what happens, to see if this really is my maintenance calories level, as I'm far hungrier on 1580 cals/day than I was on 1500 cals/day when I lived in Saudi. I don't think I'm that much more active than I was, but maybe I am... I feel stronger and healthier now though. I'll make a decision in due course... at the moment it seems like traditional cutting and bulking is the way to go, but can't decide which I should do first....

Personal preference as always, but my recommendations are, start bulking when you get to sub 22% (a bit lower is better though) and stop and cut when you hit about 25 - 27%.

neandermagnon

Whether you can recomp depends on how experienced you are and how fat you are (fat newbs are really the only ones that can do it).

Other than that, what's going on with your body fat is primarily driven by average caloric balance over time, rather than how much you eat on one particular day. It takes time for the body to shift from net catabolism to net anabolism, it's not a "switch" you can turn on and off on a daily basis.

So cyclical dieting pretty much comes down to a matter of personal preference. If you want to lose fat, you still need a net deficit over time, and when you have a net deficit, you aren't adding muscle.

^^this is my view on it.

Also, your body takes time to digest, absorb and utilize food, which varies depending on your eating habits (timing, macro mix etc) - it is not a 'start from scratch' at the beginning of the day reset which imo, makes it very inefficient and very hard to sync up. The timing of workouts also impacts it.

Can you make some gains...yes, but imo, they are more by luck than judgement on the days where things 'fall right' - hence why I think it very inefficient. It is a personal thing as to whether its worth it as it is a lot of effort and manipulation to go through for the gains that may be made.

Thank you for the responses, very helpful. I'm not fat (healthy range bf%, a fair bit of room for improvement) or that much of a noob, although I'm not as strong as I was when I used to play ice hockey... actually I was 10lb heavier then, but no idea if I had any more lean body mass than I do now, as I was carrying too much fat (you can't out train a bad diet... but the extra fat was useful for checking people into the boards...)

Well anyway, for now I'm eating 1750 cals/day for at least a couple of weeks and seeing what happens, to see if this really is my maintenance calories level, as I'm far hungrier on 1580 cals/day than I was on 1500 cals/day when I lived in Saudi. I don't think I'm that much more active than I was, but maybe I am... I feel stronger and healthier now though. I'll make a decision in due course... at the moment it seems like traditional cutting and bulking is the way to go, but can't decide which I should do first....

Personal preference as always, but my recommendations are, start bulking when you get to sub 22% (a bit lower is better though) and stop and cut when you hit about 25 - 27%.

Thank you Sorry I missed this reply until now, I think the thread fell off the bottom of the "my threads" page.

I've pretty much decided, for now, that after I find out whether 1850 cals/day (sorry typo'd the number in my last post) is maintenance or a slow cut, I'm going to do a slow cut while continuing with my regular workouts. If 1850 cals is a slow cut, I'll probably stick to that number (maybe a little lower depending on how slow), if it's maintenance, then I'll subtract 10%. If I start having negative effects, or if I get to around 20%bf, then I'll switch to a bulk (calories to be determined at the time).