Which came first, the cut or the bulk?

ggxx100

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.

teehee1211

I would avoid it. Bulking means the scale will go up. I don't care where it's from, I avoid it.

Maybe cutting first would be easier on the brain.

heatherloveslifting

My highly unscientific instinct tells me you will look *amazing* after a bulk!

DavPul

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???"

It should be noted that I also like to eat tons and tons of pizza and like to lift heavy as hell, so "bulking" is generally my excuse to eat like a crazy man, get fat as all hell, and hit PRs. By default setting is bulk, even when my fat *kitten* should definitely be cutting.

nikilis

so, it looks like a majority of bulk before cut, which does seem to make sense.

now I need to do some googling into the best way to go forward, so if anyone has any links or a regiment they would like to share, let me know

thanks for all your responses !!!

teehee1211

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.

grantdumas7

What method did you use to measure your b/f? If you used some kind of electrical impedance method then I think you are less than 17%. But if you are truly 17% then I wouldn't bulk at the expense of adding bodyfat. If you go on an all out bulk program just to try to add size without any regards to b/f, then you may find your body reaching 20%. Just get on a good lifting program. Do cardio at least 3xper week and eat around maintenance calories.

nikilis

What method did you use to measure your b/f? If you used some kind of electrical impedance method then I think you are less than 17%. But if you are truly 17% then I wouldn't bulk at the expense of adding bodyfat. If you go on an all out bulk program just to try to add size without any regards to b/f, then you may find your body reaching 20%. Just get on a good lifting program. Do cardio at least 3xper week and eat around maintenance calories.

I was 17% last November, which was done on a proper nutritionist costs 20 bucks big printout which gives you accurate readings, but that was actually quite a while ago, so probably it's lower, I look a lot more defined and I have added muscle. I should probably go get it done again.

mndamon

If you aren't excessively obese then I would absolutely recommend bulking and then cutting. If you're severely overweight then bulking is pretty pointless.

nikilis

If you aren't excessively obese then I would absolutely recommend bulking and then cutting. If you're severely overweight then bulking is pretty pointless.

My stats are at the top dude. Thanks for the info tho!

nikilis

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!

waldo56

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.

darrensurrey

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.

nikilis

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....

darrensurrey

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.

ggxx100

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.

waldo56

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).

ggxx100

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.

waldo56

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.

ggxx100

I lose weight consuming 3K calories per day.....

Were you overweight consuming 2,000 calories a day?