Road to Six Pack ABs - Get Ripped!

Options
1568101113

Replies

  • JeffseekingV
    JeffseekingV Posts: 3,165 Member
    Options
    Assuming facts, the basis of arguments here in MFP. When asked to quantify, cut and run
  • LolBroScience
    LolBroScience Posts: 4,537 Member
    Options
    Assuming facts, the basis of arguments here in MFP. When asked to quantify, cut and run

    No, see above.
  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,220 Member
    Options
    Assuming facts, the basis of arguments here in MFP. When asked to quantify, cut and run

    I gave you studies. You completely ignored one that was relevant to getting lean before bulking.
  • JeffseekingV
    JeffseekingV Posts: 3,165 Member
    Options
    usmcmp wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    I did not assume or imply anything. I know exactly where is starting and have repeated that more than a few times. I actually assumed he kinda knows what he's going and would go out of his way NOT to lose LBM if possible.

    I also said that any gains related to % bodyfat aren't going to be significant enough given the wide variables we are using for this. Ie.. there will be larger variables in training, diet, cardio and actual tracking of all these vs the verifiable gains of bulking at <10% vs 14%. Again IMHO only
    You actually have assume that. It has been your biggest point of argument to this point. You've said several time why should he cut from 14% to 10 or under, end up losing lbm to then bulk to add lbm he lost. The issue is you are overstating how much lbm he will lose from 14 to 10. We train and eat right specifically to prevent or limit lose of lbm to a minimum. So to say he is then just going to bulk to gain what he lost is false.

    The other thing as it has been stated before, bulking at a higher bf% will leave you more susceptible to fat accumulation that wasn't desired.

    Comparing what we do to what some bodybuilders do is just misguided. It's easy to fulk when you know that you're riding a bike and can cruise into a cut like a superhuman.


    Last thing, your theories, are they based on personal experience or readings?

    It's a fact that he will lose some LBM during a cut. He can try to minimize it and that is all. So if he bulks after, he will obviously have to gain back what he lost. There is no question to this.

    So how much more susceptible? Quantify it for us. How much more susceptible would he be at <10% vs 14%. And how much of that "favorable" LBM gain be just getting back what he originally lost?

    No one is saying he can cruise to anything. But I did GUESS that 14%, he might have an easier time cutting vs bulking. RELATIVELY.

    I'm a former powerlifter. Have lost 20lbs over 4 years and have gains most of my strength back. How much LBM is really up in the air as I didn't measure before I started this.

    And you?
    You just don't seem to compute what's being said in this thread. Honestly it's not the first time you pop into a conversation and don't grasp what we are talking about.

    I'm not going to bother with the whole lbm part with you because you seem to think it's some huge number and your debates and running in circles. It's boring.

    I'm not going to bother repeating the other stuff already discussed in this thread. It's a waste of time.

    Notice how the OP was getting good advice then you came in with hypotheticals.

    Congrats on your loss. I've lost much more than 20 lbs and in a lot less than 4 years. Strength has drastically improved. Thank you.

    Actually I probably understand more than you and maybe it's you that's not computing? In our last exchange, I've had to repeat 2-3 of the same discussion I had with others.

    Again I NEVER SAID THE LBM LOSS WOULD BE HUGE! How many times do I have to repeat this?

    It was others that implied that it would be huge and the fat gained would be huge. I never said any of those things.


    Good advice? How to you get to that? Just because it mimics what someone else has said?

    Congrats to your larger weight loss. In reality the bulk of my weight loss happened in a lot less time of 4 years. 4 years is about how long I've been doing this here. The weight loss flattened out years ago.

    If he wants to cut, bulk and then cut again (there's no other way around this), then that's fine. I'll ASSUME he wants to cut at the end because there's now way to just gain LBM. And if he wants to be at <10%, he's going to want to cut again. I say bulk clean now and cut once vs twice. No need to lose LBM and have to bulk to get that back. How ever small or large that might be

    No, you really just don't get it. It's not about losing LBM, it's about your body gaining a higher ratio of fat to lean mass when you have higher body fat. Plus, he can take advantage of hormones rebounding off a cut to gain more lean mass in the first few months. Greater initial bulk gains plus less fat mass gains if he cuts first. I've provided a study already concerning bulking while lean.

    Also, you say clean bulk and I'm going to assume you mean lean bulk. Clean means 100% whole foods. Lean means slight surplus.

    Actually it is SOME about losing LBM. If he's cutting from 14% to <10%, are you stating he is NOT going to lose some LBM? And that he would not have to gain that back during his bulk phase? I'll GUESS that much of that rebounding is just getting back what he just lost.

    Can you repost that link? I"ll read it. But it doesn't change what I said above about losing LBM while cutting.
  • LolBroScience
    LolBroScience Posts: 4,537 Member
    Options
    Really? scroll the pages how hard is it? It stands out in a blue hyperlink.
  • LolBroScience
    LolBroScience Posts: 4,537 Member
    Options
    usmcmp wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    I did not assume or imply anything. I know exactly where is starting and have repeated that more than a few times. I actually assumed he kinda knows what he's going and would go out of his way NOT to lose LBM if possible.

    I also said that any gains related to % bodyfat aren't going to be significant enough given the wide variables we are using for this. Ie.. there will be larger variables in training, diet, cardio and actual tracking of all these vs the verifiable gains of bulking at <10% vs 14%. Again IMHO only
    You actually have assume that. It has been your biggest point of argument to this point. You've said several time why should he cut from 14% to 10 or under, end up losing lbm to then bulk to add lbm he lost. The issue is you are overstating how much lbm he will lose from 14 to 10. We train and eat right specifically to prevent or limit lose of lbm to a minimum. So to say he is then just going to bulk to gain what he lost is false.

    The other thing as it has been stated before, bulking at a higher bf% will leave you more susceptible to fat accumulation that wasn't desired.

    Comparing what we do to what some bodybuilders do is just misguided. It's easy to fulk when you know that you're riding a bike and can cruise into a cut like a superhuman.


    Last thing, your theories, are they based on personal experience or readings?

    It's a fact that he will lose some LBM during a cut. He can try to minimize it and that is all. So if he bulks after, he will obviously have to gain back what he lost. There is no question to this.

    So how much more susceptible? Quantify it for us. How much more susceptible would he be at <10% vs 14%. And how much of that "favorable" LBM gain be just getting back what he originally lost?

    No one is saying he can cruise to anything. But I did GUESS that 14%, he might have an easier time cutting vs bulking. RELATIVELY.

    I'm a former powerlifter. Have lost 20lbs over 4 years and have gains most of my strength back. How much LBM is really up in the air as I didn't measure before I started this.

    And you?
    You just don't seem to compute what's being said in this thread. Honestly it's not the first time you pop into a conversation and don't grasp what we are talking about.

    I'm not going to bother with the whole lbm part with you because you seem to think it's some huge number and your debates and running in circles. It's boring.

    I'm not going to bother repeating the other stuff already discussed in this thread. It's a waste of time.

    Notice how the OP was getting good advice then you came in with hypotheticals.

    Congrats on your loss. I've lost much more than 20 lbs and in a lot less than 4 years. Strength has drastically improved. Thank you.

    Actually I probably understand more than you and maybe it's you that's not computing? In our last exchange, I've had to repeat 2-3 of the same discussion I had with others.

    Again I NEVER SAID THE LBM LOSS WOULD BE HUGE! How many times do I have to repeat this?

    It was others that implied that it would be huge and the fat gained would be huge. I never said any of those things.


    Good advice? How to you get to that? Just because it mimics what someone else has said?

    Congrats to your larger weight loss. In reality the bulk of my weight loss happened in a lot less time of 4 years. 4 years is about how long I've been doing this here. The weight loss flattened out years ago.

    If he wants to cut, bulk and then cut again (there's no other way around this), then that's fine. I'll ASSUME he wants to cut at the end because there's now way to just gain LBM. And if he wants to be at <10%, he's going to want to cut again. I say bulk clean now and cut once vs twice. No need to lose LBM and have to bulk to get that back. How ever small or large that might be

    No, you really just don't get it. It's not about losing LBM, it's about your body gaining a higher ratio of fat to lean mass when you have higher body fat. Plus, he can take advantage of hormones rebounding off a cut to gain more lean mass in the first few months. Greater initial bulk gains plus less fat mass gains if he cuts first. I've provided a study already concerning bulking while lean.

    Also, you say clean bulk and I'm going to assume you mean lean bulk. Clean means 100% whole foods. Lean means slight surplus.

    Actually it is SOME about losing LBM. If he's cutting from 14% to <10%, are you stating he is NOT going to lose some LBM? And that he would not have to gain that back during his bulk phase? I'll GUESS that much of that rebounding is just getting back what he just lost.

    Can you repost that link? I"ll read it. But it doesn't change what I said above about losing LBM while cutting.

    You're making this far to complicated by speaking in hypotheticals.
  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,220 Member
    Options
    If he's cutting from 20% to 14% or 10% isn't he going to lose some LBM? The longer you cut the more you deal with metabolic adaptations and the more likely you are to lose lean mass (plus deal with greater fat over-shooting having gone up to a higher body fat). He's going to lose lean mass either way, but it's not a significant amount if he's only cutting 4%.

    http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2013/06/bulking-done-right-what-can-latest-100.html
  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,220 Member
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    I did not assume or imply anything. I know exactly where is starting and have repeated that more than a few times. I actually assumed he kinda knows what he's going and would go out of his way NOT to lose LBM if possible.

    I also said that any gains related to % bodyfat aren't going to be significant enough given the wide variables we are using for this. Ie.. there will be larger variables in training, diet, cardio and actual tracking of all these vs the verifiable gains of bulking at <10% vs 14%. Again IMHO only
    You actually have assume that. It has been your biggest point of argument to this point. You've said several time why should he cut from 14% to 10 or under, end up losing lbm to then bulk to add lbm he lost. The issue is you are overstating how much lbm he will lose from 14 to 10. We train and eat right specifically to prevent or limit lose of lbm to a minimum. So to say he is then just going to bulk to gain what he lost is false.

    The other thing as it has been stated before, bulking at a higher bf% will leave you more susceptible to fat accumulation that wasn't desired.

    Comparing what we do to what some bodybuilders do is just misguided. It's easy to fulk when you know that you're riding a bike and can cruise into a cut like a superhuman.


    Last thing, your theories, are they based on personal experience or readings?

    It's a fact that he will lose some LBM during a cut. He can try to minimize it and that is all. So if he bulks after, he will obviously have to gain back what he lost. There is no question to this.

    So how much more susceptible? Quantify it for us. How much more susceptible would he be at <10% vs 14%. And how much of that "favorable" LBM gain be just getting back what he originally lost?

    No one is saying he can cruise to anything. But I did GUESS that 14%, he might have an easier time cutting vs bulking. RELATIVELY.

    I'm a former powerlifter. Have lost 20lbs over 4 years and have gains most of my strength back. How much LBM is really up in the air as I didn't measure before I started this.

    And you?

    I just want to point out your "former powerlifter" and weight loss comment is irrelevant to this conversation.

    I competed in a bodybuilding competition and took 1st in heavy weight fall of 2013 then set a world deadlift record just under a year later. Totally irrelevant. What you lift and how much you've lost doesn't mean you are an expert. As a competitive bodybuilder I am not an expert, but I've read a lot and I have gone through all of this before.
  • JeffseekingV
    JeffseekingV Posts: 3,165 Member
    edited November 2014
    Options
    usmcmp wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    I did not assume or imply anything. I know exactly where is starting and have repeated that more than a few times. I actually assumed he kinda knows what he's going and would go out of his way NOT to lose LBM if possible.

    I also said that any gains related to % bodyfat aren't going to be significant enough given the wide variables we are using for this. Ie.. there will be larger variables in training, diet, cardio and actual tracking of all these vs the verifiable gains of bulking at <10% vs 14%. Again IMHO only
    You actually have assume that. It has been your biggest point of argument to this point. You've said several time why should he cut from 14% to 10 or under, end up losing lbm to then bulk to add lbm he lost. The issue is you are overstating how much lbm he will lose from 14 to 10. We train and eat right specifically to prevent or limit lose of lbm to a minimum. So to say he is then just going to bulk to gain what he lost is false.

    The other thing as it has been stated before, bulking at a higher bf% will leave you more susceptible to fat accumulation that wasn't desired.

    Comparing what we do to what some bodybuilders do is just misguided. It's easy to fulk when you know that you're riding a bike and can cruise into a cut like a superhuman.


    Last thing, your theories, are they based on personal experience or readings?

    It's a fact that he will lose some LBM during a cut. He can try to minimize it and that is all. So if he bulks after, he will obviously have to gain back what he lost. There is no question to this.

    So how much more susceptible? Quantify it for us. How much more susceptible would he be at <10% vs 14%. And how much of that "favorable" LBM gain be just getting back what he originally lost?

    No one is saying he can cruise to anything. But I did GUESS that 14%, he might have an easier time cutting vs bulking. RELATIVELY.

    I'm a former powerlifter. Have lost 20lbs over 4 years and have gains most of my strength back. How much LBM is really up in the air as I didn't measure before I started this.

    And you?

    I just want to point out your "former powerlifter" and weight loss comment is irrelevant to this conversation.

    I competed in a bodybuilding competition and took 1st in heavy weight fall of 2013 then set a world deadlift record just under a year later. Totally irrelevant. What you lift and how much you've lost doesn't mean you are an expert. As a competitive bodybuilder I am not an expert, but I've read a lot and I have gone through all of this before.

    I mentioned it because someone ASKED for it. The person I was talking to made it a point of mentioning he lost MORE than me in a less time. Also totally irrelevant but again, he ASKED for it and I gave him my history. And he gave me his. No more, no less. I never said I was an expert (more assumption) and made it A POINT to use IMHO and "I GUESS" when I made a statement that was a GUESS and not a statement or claim as fact

    Were you referring to this paragraph?
    Muscle has a "repartitioning effect": Contrary to the fat mass, which did not correlate with changes in any of the measured parameters, the scientists observed a statistically significant inverse correlation between the amount of muscle, the subjects were carrying on their frames and the changes in the lean-to-fat mass ratio (r=-0.41; p=0.05) - this means: the more muscle the guys had to begin with the more muscle and less fat they were gaining in response to the 1,000 extra kcal they were consuming.

    One could also take that as to try to gain as much muscle as possible and not try to cut. Also the people in this study weren't allowed to lift? so the results start to get odd as variables are introduced.
  • JeffseekingV
    JeffseekingV Posts: 3,165 Member
    Options
    usmcmp wrote: »
    If he's cutting from 20% to 14% or 10% isn't he going to lose some LBM? The longer you cut the more you deal with metabolic adaptations and the more likely you are to lose lean mass (plus deal with greater fat over-shooting having gone up to a higher body fat). He's going to lose lean mass either way, but it's not a significant amount if he's only cutting 4%.

    http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2013/06/bulking-done-right-what-can-latest-100.html

    Unless we can quantify how much MORE he can gain at <10% vs at 14% is also more than likely not a significant amount. Only thing for sure that he would have to wait until he's <10% before bulking vs bulking now. And unless your study shows some significant gains at <10% (and over what he would have lost), then he MIGHT take longer to bulk to his LBM before beginning his final cut for this phase.
  • PwrLftr82
    PwrLftr82 Posts: 945 Member
    Options
    Can Jeffseekingv and everyone else just agree to disagree? Watching this train wreck is severely cutting into my face stuffing time LOL
  • JeffseekingV
    JeffseekingV Posts: 3,165 Member
    edited November 2014
    Options
    Like I've said more than a few times, if he wants to cut to <10% before bulking, that's fine with me. TO ME, that seems counter productive. No more, no less. I never said he would lose ALOT of LBM during the cut and I never said he would gain a ton of fat during the bulk. I'll repeat this again also. In order to make some of the statements about LBM gains at X% vs X=X%, it would take a pretty strict ways of measuring calories, a very strict method of tracking your lifts and a way of having fine control of the macro/micro nutrient values. Along with having a very good way of measuring BF and LBM. It's possible though.
  • JeffseekingV
    JeffseekingV Posts: 3,165 Member
    Options
    usmcmp wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    I did not assume or imply anything. I know exactly where is starting and have repeated that more than a few times. I actually assumed he kinda knows what he's going and would go out of his way NOT to lose LBM if possible.

    I also said that any gains related to % bodyfat aren't going to be significant enough given the wide variables we are using for this. Ie.. there will be larger variables in training, diet, cardio and actual tracking of all these vs the verifiable gains of bulking at <10% vs 14%. Again IMHO only
    You actually have assume that. It has been your biggest point of argument to this point. You've said several time why should he cut from 14% to 10 or under, end up losing lbm to then bulk to add lbm he lost. The issue is you are overstating how much lbm he will lose from 14 to 10. We train and eat right specifically to prevent or limit lose of lbm to a minimum. So to say he is then just going to bulk to gain what he lost is false.

    The other thing as it has been stated before, bulking at a higher bf% will leave you more susceptible to fat accumulation that wasn't desired.

    Comparing what we do to what some bodybuilders do is just misguided. It's easy to fulk when you know that you're riding a bike and can cruise into a cut like a superhuman.


    Last thing, your theories, are they based on personal experience or readings?

    It's a fact that he will lose some LBM during a cut. He can try to minimize it and that is all. So if he bulks after, he will obviously have to gain back what he lost. There is no question to this.

    So how much more susceptible? Quantify it for us. How much more susceptible would he be at <10% vs 14%. And how much of that "favorable" LBM gain be just getting back what he originally lost?

    No one is saying he can cruise to anything. But I did GUESS that 14%, he might have an easier time cutting vs bulking. RELATIVELY.

    I'm a former powerlifter. Have lost 20lbs over 4 years and have gains most of my strength back. How much LBM is really up in the air as I didn't measure before I started this.

    And you?
    You just don't seem to compute what's being said in this thread. Honestly it's not the first time you pop into a conversation and don't grasp what we are talking about.

    I'm not going to bother with the whole lbm part with you because you seem to think it's some huge number and your debates and running in circles. It's boring.

    I'm not going to bother repeating the other stuff already discussed in this thread. It's a waste of time.

    Notice how the OP was getting good advice then you came in with hypotheticals.

    Congrats on your loss. I've lost much more than 20 lbs and in a lot less than 4 years. Strength has drastically improved. Thank you.

    Actually I probably understand more than you and maybe it's you that's not computing? In our last exchange, I've had to repeat 2-3 of the same discussion I had with others.

    Again I NEVER SAID THE LBM LOSS WOULD BE HUGE! How many times do I have to repeat this?

    It was others that implied that it would be huge and the fat gained would be huge. I never said any of those things.


    Good advice? How to you get to that? Just because it mimics what someone else has said?

    Congrats to your larger weight loss. In reality the bulk of my weight loss happened in a lot less time of 4 years. 4 years is about how long I've been doing this here. The weight loss flattened out years ago.

    If he wants to cut, bulk and then cut again (there's no other way around this), then that's fine. I'll ASSUME he wants to cut at the end because there's now way to just gain LBM. And if he wants to be at <10%, he's going to want to cut again. I say bulk clean now and cut once vs twice. No need to lose LBM and have to bulk to get that back. How ever small or large that might be

    No, you really just don't get it. It's not about losing LBM, it's about your body gaining a higher ratio of fat to lean mass when you have higher body fat. Plus, he can take advantage of hormones rebounding off a cut to gain more lean mass in the first few months. Greater initial bulk gains plus less fat mass gains if he cuts first. I've provided a study already concerning bulking while lean.

    Also, you say clean bulk and I'm going to assume you mean lean bulk. Clean means 100% whole foods. Lean means slight surplus.

    Actually it is SOME about losing LBM. If he's cutting from 14% to <10%, are you stating he is NOT going to lose some LBM? And that he would not have to gain that back during his bulk phase? I'll GUESS that much of that rebounding is just getting back what he just lost.

    Can you repost that link? I"ll read it. But it doesn't change what I said above about losing LBM while cutting.

    You're making this far to complicated by speaking in hypotheticals.

    I think the questions are pretty simple given there are only two: You want to address them? If not, that's okay

    1) If he's cutting from 14% to <10%, are you stating he is NOT going to lose some LBM?
    2) And that he would not have to gain that back during his bulk phase?
  • JeffseekingV
    JeffseekingV Posts: 3,165 Member
    Options
    No. IMHO, his loss in LBM is more significant than the theory that it's better to gain LBM while at a lower BF %

    People cut to lower their BF% to show the muscles underneath. For most, it's worth the loss in order to look leaner. Nothing wrong with that.

    Again, your ASSUMING the length he'd have to "STRUGGLE" to gain back. I did say at his % it would be relatively harder to gain LBM vs cutting down from above 14%. But that was a GUESS. It's also a TIME issue, cutting, bulking and then cutting again.

    In a quick search, women were found to lose ABOUT 23% lbm when cutting for a bodybuilding competition. He's not a woman but I'll use it anyway.

    I'll ASSUME he's around 170lbs. At 14%, he has 146lbs of LBM. A quick/dirty calc. If he wants to be 10%, he'll end up at around 160lbs. So he will have to lose roughly 10lbs. So around 2-3lbs of that will be muscle and the rest fat. If he loses it the right way. So IMHO, he'll be in the hole about 2-3 lbs before bulking.

    Another post here mentions that "10lbs of muscle gain" might be difficult to do. Which I agree. So the 2-3 lbs he has to gain back represents 20-30% of an optimistic LBM gain.

    Maybe this person only wants to gain 5llbs of LBM and not 10? Great. If that is the case, then after his cut, he'd have to gain 7-8lbs of LBM. Getting a little close that optimistic 10lbs right? If he just starts at 14%, he'd only have to bulk up the 5lbs. If he does a LEAN bulk, then the fat gain might not equal 5lbs. Maybe less. So now at 180lbs, he'd have to lose 18lbs to get to a 10% BF ratio again. And hopefully kept on as much muscle as possible.
  • LolBroScience
    LolBroScience Posts: 4,537 Member
    edited November 2014
    Options
    No. IMHO, his loss in LBM is more significant than the theory that it's better to gain LBM while at a lower BF %

    People cut to lower their BF% to show the muscles underneath. For most, it's worth the loss in order to look leaner. Nothing wrong with that.

    Again, your ASSUMING the length he'd have to "STRUGGLE" to gain back. I did say at his % it would be relatively harder to gain LBM vs cutting down from above 14%. But that was a GUESS. It's also a TIME issue, cutting, bulking and then cutting again.

    In a quick search, women were found to lose ABOUT 23% lbm when cutting for a bodybuilding competition. He's not a woman but I'll use it anyway.

    I'll ASSUME he's around 170lbs. At 14%, he has 146lbs of LBM. A quick/dirty calc. If he wants to be 10%, he'll end up at around 160lbs. So he will have to lose roughly 10lbs. So around 2-3lbs of that will be muscle and the rest fat. If he loses it the right way. So IMHO, he'll be in the hole about 2-3 lbs before bulking.

    Another post here mentions that "10lbs of muscle gain" might be difficult to do. Which I agree. So the 2-3 lbs he has to gain back represents 20-30% of an optimistic LBM gain.

    Maybe this person only wants to gain 5llbs of LBM and not 10? Great. If that is the case, then after his cut, he'd have to gain 7-8lbs of LBM. Getting a little close that optimistic 10lbs right? If he just starts at 14%, he'd only have to bulk up the 5lbs. If he does a LEAN bulk, then the fat gain might not equal 5lbs. Maybe less. So now at 180lbs, he'd have to lose 18lbs to get to a 10% BF ratio again. And hopefully kept on as much muscle as possible.

    fig,royal_blue,mens,ffffff.u3.jpg
  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,220 Member
    edited November 2014
    Options
    No. IMHO, his loss in LBM is more significant than the theory that it's better to gain LBM while at a lower BF %

    People cut to lower their BF% to show the muscles underneath. For most, it's worth the loss in order to look leaner. Nothing wrong with that.

    Again, your ASSUMING the length he'd have to "STRUGGLE" to gain back. I did say at his % it would be relatively harder to gain LBM vs cutting down from above 14%. But that was a GUESS. It's also a TIME issue, cutting, bulking and then cutting again.

    In a quick search, women were found to lose ABOUT 23% lbm when cutting for a bodybuilding competition. He's not a woman but I'll use it anyway.

    I'll ASSUME he's around 170lbs. At 14%, he has 146lbs of LBM. A quick/dirty calc. If he wants to be 10%, he'll end up at around 160lbs. So he will have to lose roughly 10lbs. So around 2-3lbs of that will be muscle and the rest fat. If he loses it the right way. So IMHO, he'll be in the hole about 2-3 lbs before bulking.

    Another post here mentions that "10lbs of muscle gain" might be difficult to do. Which I agree. So the 2-3 lbs he has to gain back represents 20-30% of an optimistic LBM gain.

    Maybe this person only wants to gain 5llbs of LBM and not 10? Great. If that is the case, then after his cut, he'd have to gain 7-8lbs of LBM. Getting a little close that optimistic 10lbs right? If he just starts at 14%, he'd only have to bulk up the 5lbs. If he does a LEAN bulk, then the fat gain might not equal 5lbs. Maybe less. So now at 180lbs, he'd have to lose 18lbs to get to a 10% BF ratio again. And hopefully kept on as much muscle as possible.

    I've done the cut (as a female) and I did not lose 23% of my weight from lean mass. The studies actually say that dieters who do no resistance training and have sub optimal protein intake lose 25% of the weight as lean mass. By the way the women in that study started at 18% body fat and dropped to 12% in 12 weeks (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11360131), which is like a man dropping from 9% to 5%. That's not even close to a man dropping from 14% to 10%.

    Let's say he does lose 2 pounds of lean mass. A man can average about 2 pounds of lean mass gains a month for the first 5 years of training. That means after the first month of bulking (ignoring rebounding hormones that would increase his initial gains) he would have it back. If he's been training for 5-8 years then it is about 1.5 pounds of lean mass in a month.
  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,220 Member
    Options
  • JeffseekingV
    JeffseekingV Posts: 3,165 Member
    edited November 2014
    Options
    usmcmp wrote: »
    No. IMHO, his loss in LBM is more significant than the theory that it's better to gain LBM while at a lower BF %

    People cut to lower their BF% to show the muscles underneath. For most, it's worth the loss in order to look leaner. Nothing wrong with that.

    Again, your ASSUMING the length he'd have to "STRUGGLE" to gain back. I did say at his % it would be relatively harder to gain LBM vs cutting down from above 14%. But that was a GUESS. It's also a TIME issue, cutting, bulking and then cutting again.

    In a quick search, women were found to lose ABOUT 23% lbm when cutting for a bodybuilding competition. He's not a woman but I'll use it anyway.

    I'll ASSUME he's around 170lbs. At 14%, he has 146lbs of LBM. A quick/dirty calc. If he wants to be 10%, he'll end up at around 160lbs. So he will have to lose roughly 10lbs. So around 2-3lbs of that will be muscle and the rest fat. If he loses it the right way. So IMHO, he'll be in the hole about 2-3 lbs before bulking.

    Another post here mentions that "10lbs of muscle gain" might be difficult to do. Which I agree. So the 2-3 lbs he has to gain back represents 20-30% of an optimistic LBM gain.

    Maybe this person only wants to gain 5llbs of LBM and not 10? Great. If that is the case, then after his cut, he'd have to gain 7-8lbs of LBM. Getting a little close that optimistic 10lbs right? If he just starts at 14%, he'd only have to bulk up the 5lbs. If he does a LEAN bulk, then the fat gain might not equal 5lbs. Maybe less. So now at 180lbs, he'd have to lose 18lbs to get to a 10% BF ratio again. And hopefully kept on as much muscle as possible.

    I've done the cut (as a female) and I did not lose 23% of my weight from lean mass. The studies actually say that dieters who do no resistance training and have sub optimal protein intake lose 25% of the weight as lean mass. By the way the women in that study started at 18% body fat and dropped to 12% in 12 weeks (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11360131), which is like a man dropping from 9% to 5%. That's not even close to a man dropping from 14% to 10%.

    Let's say he does lose 2 pounds of lean mass. A man can average about 2 pounds of lean mass gains a month for the first 5 years of training. That means after the first month of bulking (ignoring rebounding hormones that would increase his initial gains) he would have it back. If he's been training for 5-8 years then it is about 1.5 pounds of lean mass in a month.

    I said 2-3 lbs so we are right there depending what he actually weighs. If he weighs more, then the actual weight in pounds will be more. Less is he weighs less. If he's been training for 5-8 years, his gains back won't be as great either. And your study didn't account for lifting nor did it discuss specific body fat amounts as one can't lose fat linearly. Ie at high body fat as at very low body fat correct? How long would it take to gain that 1-2 lbs back via lifting and eating? And how much does that add to the amount he wanted to bulk in the first place? And how do you know it wouldn't be faster just to bulk now with a lean gain and just cut once?