Which came first, the cut or the bulk?
Replies
-
Getting fat is having a higher body fat percentage.
Which most people do when bulking. I think it's quite rare for someone to maintain an exact bodyfat% while gaining significant weight.
If this happened, people would cut once, and then bulk forever.
I suppose it's rare, but no where near impossible.
Two month's into bulking, pre-cut. The bodyfat % was maintained, if I'm not mistaken. Doing lean gains, not that I think it's the answer to bulking without turning into a whale (as you all insist will happen) I'm bulking as well and haven't seen much of a fat gain if any.
And don't worry, I have full permission to post. I'm making bacon this morning.
Edit: not to go off-topic, but maybe OP should try lean gains. I'm not one for IF since I feel like I'm going to die if I don't eat for two hours, but it's worked for the bf as well as a few others I know of that have given it a go.
Lol this is pretty convincing commercial. I'm going to go make my man try this now.
Yah, I want to know that regiment, that looks fricken awesome!
Tell me!0 -
Increase muscle mass indisputably raises metabolic rate. After enough gains, you burn more just sitting and blinking than before. Sounds like an exaggeration, but your body really does become a fat-burning machine (or more closely resembles one) after you substantially gain muscle mass.
This effect is tiny. About 5 lbs per lb muscle gained.
Have a great first year for a beginner, gain 20 lbs of muscle, and you'll burn 100 cal more a day. Whoopdedoo. That is the smallest # that a normal scale can see in a week (0.2 lb = 100 cal, 0.2 lb is usually the smallest unit on a scale).
Raising metabolic rate due to muscle gain is absolutely not a good reason to bulk first. There are good reasons to, but that is not one of them. Raising metabolic rate is the usual song and dance to try to convince shy women to lift weights, but it is for the most part an irrelevant side effect.0 -
I'm an old school dinosaur and no one seems to prescribe to my way of thinking anymore, but I always go for a bulk before a cut. I see so many people say they are cutting and I look at them and I'm like, "cutting what???"
You say it's a modern way of thinking - I wonder if Fight Club had anything to do with it.0 -
I'm an old school dinosaur and no one seems to prescribe to my way of thinking anymore, but I always go for a bulk before a cut. I see so many people say they are cutting and I look at them and I'm like, "cutting what???"
You say it's a modern way of thinking - I wonder if Fight Club had anything to do with it.
now im confused....0 -
I'm an old school dinosaur and no one seems to prescribe to my way of thinking anymore, but I always go for a bulk before a cut. I see so many people say they are cutting and I look at them and I'm like, "cutting what???"
You say it's a modern way of thinking - I wonder if Fight Club had anything to do with it.
now im confused....
Google "brad pitt fight club" and click images.0 -
Increase muscle mass indisputably raises metabolic rate. After enough gains, you burn more just sitting and blinking than before. Sounds like an exaggeration, but your body really does become a fat-burning machine (or more closely resembles one) after you substantially gain muscle mass.
This effect is tiny. About 5 lbs per lb muscle gained.
Have a great first year for a beginner, gain 20 lbs of muscle, and you'll burn 100 cal more a day. Whoopdedoo. That is the smallest # that a normal scale can see in a week (0.2 lb = 100 cal, 0.2 lb is usually the smallest unit on a scale).
Raising metabolic rate due to muscle gain is absolutely not a good reason to bulk first. There are good reasons to, but that is not one of them. Raising metabolic rate is the usual song and dance to try to convince shy women to lift weights, but it is for the most part an irrelevant side effect.
I could of course find an latimes article about the effect of muscle mass on metabolic rate (like you) but that would be pointless. If what you're saying is absolutely true for the entire population, how is it that I'm maintaining a weight that is 50 pounds lighter while eating a similar amount of calories as when I was overweight? My weight loss was also done with only weight training and no cardio.
Most girls at 5'1 and around 100 pounds can not eat upwards of 2000 calories a day. I attribute that to my weight training regimen, as before I ate less than that and was around 150. I highly doubt my boyfriend could consume 3,000-4000 calories a day (more or less) without weight training and look the way he does.
You can throw scientific jargon around, but my results speak for themselves. I was suggesting to OP what I've found based on my own experiences, not statistics or averages.0 -
Increase muscle mass indisputably raises metabolic rate. After enough gains, you burn more just sitting and blinking than before. Sounds like an exaggeration, but your body really does become a fat-burning machine (or more closely resembles one) after you substantially gain muscle mass.
This effect is tiny. About 5 lbs per lb muscle gained.
Have a great first year for a beginner, gain 20 lbs of muscle, and you'll burn 100 cal more a day. Whoopdedoo. That is the smallest # that a normal scale can see in a week (0.2 lb = 100 cal, 0.2 lb is usually the smallest unit on a scale).
Raising metabolic rate due to muscle gain is absolutely not a good reason to bulk first. There are good reasons to, but that is not one of them. Raising metabolic rate is the usual song and dance to try to convince shy women to lift weights, but it is for the most part an irrelevant side effect.
I could of course find an latimes article about the effect of muscle mass on metabolic rate (like you) but that would be pointless. If what you're saying is absolutely true for the entire population, how is it that I'm maintaining a weight that is 50 pounds lighter while eating a similar amount of calories as when I was overweight? My weight loss was also done with only weight training and no cardio.
Most girls at 5'1 and around 100 pounds can not eat upwards of 2000 calories a day. I attribute that to my weight training regimen, as before I ate less than that and was around 150. I highly doubt my boyfriend could consume 3,000-4000 calories a day (more or less) without weight training and look the way he does.
You can throw scientific jargon around, but my results speak for themselves. I was suggesting to OP what I've found based on my own experiences, not statistics or averages.
You have discovered the magical effect known as underestimating strength training calories. Strength training does not burn less than walking, as MFP's entries and many posters here would have you believe. It actually burns fairly close to the same amount as running, hair lower.
Doesn't last if you quit strength training.
Metabolic raise from muscle mass gain would remain.
You can tell that its not the muscle mass gain by tracking your maintenance level as you gain muscle mass. Gaining 10-20 lbs should put it through the roof if you believe the hype. It doesn't.
However spending time in a calorie surplus causes your metabolism to go up, independent of the muscle mass gain. Your body adapts, same as it does to a deficit over time. Also a reason for increased maintenance in folks that spend much of their time bulking. Same thing happens to people who spend too much time cutting (in reverse).0 -
Increase muscle mass indisputably raises metabolic rate. After enough gains, you burn more just sitting and blinking than before. Sounds like an exaggeration, but your body really does become a fat-burning machine (or more closely resembles one) after you substantially gain muscle mass.
This effect is tiny. About 5 lbs per lb muscle gained.
Have a great first year for a beginner, gain 20 lbs of muscle, and you'll burn 100 cal more a day. Whoopdedoo. That is the smallest # that a normal scale can see in a week (0.2 lb = 100 cal, 0.2 lb is usually the smallest unit on a scale).
Raising metabolic rate due to muscle gain is absolutely not a good reason to bulk first. There are good reasons to, but that is not one of them. Raising metabolic rate is the usual song and dance to try to convince shy women to lift weights, but it is for the most part an irrelevant side effect.
I could of course find an latimes article about the effect of muscle mass on metabolic rate (like you) but that would be pointless. If what you're saying is absolutely true for the entire population, how is it that I'm maintaining a weight that is 50 pounds lighter while eating a similar amount of calories as when I was overweight? My weight loss was also done with only weight training and no cardio.
Most girls at 5'1 and around 100 pounds can not eat upwards of 2000 calories a day. I attribute that to my weight training regimen, as before I ate less than that and was around 150. I highly doubt my boyfriend could consume 3,000-4000 calories a day (more or less) without weight training and look the way he does.
You can throw scientific jargon around, but my results speak for themselves. I was suggesting to OP what I've found based on my own experiences, not statistics or averages.
You have discovered the magical effect known as underestimating strength training calories.
Doesn't last if you quit strength training.
Metabolic raise from muscle mass gain would remain.
You can tell that its not the muscle mass gain by tracking your maintenance level as you gain muscle mass. Gaining 10-20 lbs should put it through the roof if you believe the hype. It doesn't.
However spending time in a calorie surplus causes your metabolism to go up, independent of the muscle mass gain. Your body adapts, same as it does to a deficit over time. Also a reason for increased maintenance in folks that spend much of their time bulking. Same thing happens to people who spend too much time cutting (in reverse).
Yes, calorie surplus causes metabolism to go up. This is why if someone is overweight consuming 2000 calories a day, they will lose weight consuming 3000 calories a day, because their metabolism went up.
The answer to all overweight people to eat more, regardless of their activity.
Myfitnesspal has entirely missed the point, I see.0 -
I lose weight consuming 3K calories per day.....
Why do you think virtually everybody that "lift's heavy" has magical fat loss effects? Its seen as a miracle among many. Easy, it burns WAY more calories than people think it does, and it tends to not cause the stalls that massive undereating otherwise would.
Like I said, stop strength training and poof, the magic high metabolism is gone.
But the rising/falling metabolism effect is fairly small unless you've been doing it a lot time. Look up some of Layne Norton's stuff on metabolic damage and building up metabolic capacity in the offseason. It is a very real effect.0 -
I lose weight consuming 3K calories per day.....
Were you overweight consuming 2,000 calories a day?0 -
I lose weight consuming 3K calories per day.....
Were you overweight consuming 2,000 calories a day?
2600ish.
Like I said, look up some of Layne Norton's stuff on metabolism.0 -
I lose weight consuming 3K calories per day.....
Were you overweight consuming 2,000 calories a day?
2600ish.
Like I said, look up some of Layne Norton's stuff on metabolism.
:yawn:0 -
wow. confusing! :P0
-
Increase muscle mass indisputably raises metabolic rate. After enough gains, you burn more just sitting and blinking than before. Sounds like an exaggeration, but your body really does become a fat-burning machine (or more closely resembles one) after you substantially gain muscle mass.
This effect is tiny. About 5 lbs per lb muscle gained.
Have a great first year for a beginner, gain 20 lbs of muscle, and you'll burn 100 cal more a day. Whoopdedoo. That is the smallest # that a normal scale can see in a week (0.2 lb = 100 cal, 0.2 lb is usually the smallest unit on a scale).
Raising metabolic rate due to muscle gain is absolutely not a good reason to bulk first. There are good reasons to, but that is not one of them. Raising metabolic rate is the usual song and dance to try to convince shy women to lift weights, but it is for the most part an irrelevant side effect.
I could of course find an latimes article about the effect of muscle mass on metabolic rate (like you) but that would be pointless. If what you're saying is absolutely true for the entire population, how is it that I'm maintaining a weight that is 50 pounds lighter while eating a similar amount of calories as when I was overweight? My weight loss was also done with only weight training and no cardio.
Most girls at 5'1 and around 100 pounds can not eat upwards of 2000 calories a day. I attribute that to my weight training regimen, as before I ate less than that and was around 150. I highly doubt my boyfriend could consume 3,000-4000 calories a day (more or less) without weight training and look the way he does.
You can throw scientific jargon around, but my results speak for themselves. I was suggesting to OP what I've found based on my own experiences, not statistics or averages.
You have discovered the magical effect known as underestimating strength training calories.
Doesn't last if you quit strength training.
Metabolic raise from muscle mass gain would remain.
You can tell that its not the muscle mass gain by tracking your maintenance level as you gain muscle mass. Gaining 10-20 lbs should put it through the roof if you believe the hype. It doesn't.
However spending time in a calorie surplus causes your metabolism to go up, independent of the muscle mass gain. Your body adapts, same as it does to a deficit over time. Also a reason for increased maintenance in folks that spend much of their time bulking. Same thing happens to people who spend too much time cutting (in reverse).
Yes, calorie surplus causes metabolism to go up. This is why if someone is overweight consuming 2000 calories a day, they will lose weight consuming 3000 calories a day, because their metabolism went up.
The answer to all overweight people to eat more, regardless of their activity.
Myfitnesspal has entirely missed the point, I see.
That is a ridiculous statement unles you know their TDEE.0 -
It really would be worth your time. Layne Norton isn't some quack, you know.I lose weight consuming 3K calories per day.....
Were you overweight consuming 2,000 calories a day?
2600ish.
Like I said, look up some of Layne Norton's stuff on metabolism.
:yawn:0 -
Increase muscle mass indisputably raises metabolic rate. After enough gains, you burn more just sitting and blinking than before. Sounds like an exaggeration, but your body really does become a fat-burning machine (or more closely resembles one) after you substantially gain muscle mass.
This effect is tiny. About 5 lbs per lb muscle gained.
Have a great first year for a beginner, gain 20 lbs of muscle, and you'll burn 100 cal more a day. Whoopdedoo. That is the smallest # that a normal scale can see in a week (0.2 lb = 100 cal, 0.2 lb is usually the smallest unit on a scale).
Raising metabolic rate due to muscle gain is absolutely not a good reason to bulk first. There are good reasons to, but that is not one of them. Raising metabolic rate is the usual song and dance to try to convince shy women to lift weights, but it is for the most part an irrelevant side effect.
I could of course find an latimes article about the effect of muscle mass on metabolic rate (like you) but that would be pointless. If what you're saying is absolutely true for the entire population, how is it that I'm maintaining a weight that is 50 pounds lighter while eating a similar amount of calories as when I was overweight? My weight loss was also done with only weight training and no cardio.
Most girls at 5'1 and around 100 pounds can not eat upwards of 2000 calories a day. I attribute that to my weight training regimen, as before I ate less than that and was around 150. I highly doubt my boyfriend could consume 3,000-4000 calories a day (more or less) without weight training and look the way he does.
You can throw scientific jargon around, but my results speak for themselves. I was suggesting to OP what I've found based on my own experiences, not statistics or averages.
You have discovered the magical effect known as underestimating strength training calories.
Doesn't last if you quit strength training.
Metabolic raise from muscle mass gain would remain.
You can tell that its not the muscle mass gain by tracking your maintenance level as you gain muscle mass. Gaining 10-20 lbs should put it through the roof if you believe the hype. It doesn't.
However spending time in a calorie surplus causes your metabolism to go up, independent of the muscle mass gain. Your body adapts, same as it does to a deficit over time. Also a reason for increased maintenance in folks that spend much of their time bulking. Same thing happens to people who spend too much time cutting (in reverse).
Yes, calorie surplus causes metabolism to go up. This is why if someone is overweight consuming 2000 calories a day, they will lose weight consuming 3000 calories a day, because their metabolism went up.
The answer to all overweight people to eat more, regardless of their activity.
Myfitnesspal has entirely missed the point, I see.
That is a ridiculous statement unles you know their TDEE.
It was meant to be ridiculous.
When will MFP learn to not take all things face value....
And looking Norton up.0 -
Bump!0
-
Increase muscle mass indisputably raises metabolic rate. After enough gains, you burn more just sitting and blinking than before. Sounds like an exaggeration, but your body really does become a fat-burning machine (or more closely resembles one) after you substantially gain muscle mass.
This effect is tiny. About 5 lbs per lb muscle gained.
Have a great first year for a beginner, gain 20 lbs of muscle, and you'll burn 100 cal more a day. Whoopdedoo. That is the smallest # that a normal scale can see in a week (0.2 lb = 100 cal, 0.2 lb is usually the smallest unit on a scale).
Raising metabolic rate due to muscle gain is absolutely not a good reason to bulk first. There are good reasons to, but that is not one of them. Raising metabolic rate is the usual song and dance to try to convince shy women to lift weights, but it is for the most part an irrelevant side effect.
I could of course find an latimes article about the effect of muscle mass on metabolic rate (like you) but that would be pointless. If what you're saying is absolutely true for the entire population, how is it that I'm maintaining a weight that is 50 pounds lighter while eating a similar amount of calories as when I was overweight? My weight loss was also done with only weight training and no cardio.
Most girls at 5'1 and around 100 pounds can not eat upwards of 2000 calories a day. I attribute that to my weight training regimen, as before I ate less than that and was around 150. I highly doubt my boyfriend could consume 3,000-4000 calories a day (more or less) without weight training and look the way he does.
You can throw scientific jargon around, but my results speak for themselves. I was suggesting to OP what I've found based on my own experiences, not statistics or averages.
You have discovered the magical effect known as underestimating strength training calories.
Doesn't last if you quit strength training.
Metabolic raise from muscle mass gain would remain.
You can tell that its not the muscle mass gain by tracking your maintenance level as you gain muscle mass. Gaining 10-20 lbs should put it through the roof if you believe the hype. It doesn't.
However spending time in a calorie surplus causes your metabolism to go up, independent of the muscle mass gain. Your body adapts, same as it does to a deficit over time. Also a reason for increased maintenance in folks that spend much of their time bulking. Same thing happens to people who spend too much time cutting (in reverse).
Yes, calorie surplus causes metabolism to go up. This is why if someone is overweight consuming 2000 calories a day, they will lose weight consuming 3000 calories a day, because their metabolism went up.
The answer to all overweight people to eat more, regardless of their activity.
Myfitnesspal has entirely missed the point, I see.
That is a ridiculous statement unles you know their TDEE.
It was meant to be ridiculous.
When will MFP learn to not take all things face value....
And looking Norton up.
Haha haven't you learned? People here couldn't detect sarcasm even if it boinked them over the head..forcibly.
That's the internet for you..0 -
Layne's metabolic damage segment has caused quite the stir among some of the fitness gurus on the internet. He and Lyle McDonald are going at. Mainly Lyle is ranting.
It really would be worth your time. Layne Norton isn't some quack, you know.I lose weight consuming 3K calories per day.....
Were you overweight consuming 2,000 calories a day?
2600ish.
Like I said, look up some of Layne Norton's stuff on metabolism.
:yawn:0 -
Lyle always seemed a bit nuts to me.Layne's metabolic damage segment has caused quite the stir among some of the fitness gurus on the internet. He and Lyle McDonald are going at. Mainly Lyle is ranting.
Layne is training one member that I know of here on MFP with outstanding results. I still try to keep my bull**** detector handy when I'm reading or listening to anything by any of the fitness gurus.0 -
I bet the two of the agree about 95% of the time. I do think Layne makes alot of sense on a majority of his topics especially when it comes to training. Lyle does come of as arrogant at least that's how I perceive him.
Lyle always seemed a bit nuts to me.Layne's metabolic damage segment has caused quite the stir among some of the fitness gurus on the internet. He and Lyle McDonald are going at. Mainly Lyle is ranting.
Layne is training one member that I know of here on MFP with outstanding results. I still try to keep my bull**** detector handy when I'm reading or listening to anything by any of the fitness gurus.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions