Cut cycle question
Options
Replies
-
1500 with several hours of cardio most days and lifting? I cannot see how in any scenario that was a bulk.7
-
Macro percentages are, at best confusing, and at worst misleading. I think it's much better to work in grams.
OP - you wern't eating enough on your bulk - not sure how you got lean mass gain on 1500 cals?!? I think you should be able to reliably lose weigh on more than that.
2 -
If I remember correctly OP has a history of over exercising and undereating. I'd be more inclined to suggest reverse dieting.1
-
What did you actually bulk on? And how much weight did you gain?1
-
The more aggressive your deficit is, they more muscle you will lose. Lose weight slowly and keep lifting to keep your muscle.
40% Protein 40% Fat 30% Carbs will get you 110%
I'd suggest you might have an easier time hitting each day calorie goal by increasing Carbs by 10-20% and decreasing Fat the same amount. The protein is very high, I bet 35% would do it just fine.
You'll need those carbs to keep your muscle too, but that could be bro-science. I don't know much about high fat diets.
Thanks! yes that was a typo on the %'s
I will try this for a couple of weeks and reassess to see what and where I should tweak. I am a carb person that's for sure so I have no problem increasing that.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »1500 with several hours of cardio most days and lifting? I cannot see how in any scenario that was a bulk.
True, it's not like I bulked up immensely, just a lot more than I was previously. At my lightest before I started lifting weights I was pretty much looking like a 12 year old boy, all cardio and no meat lol! I started doing Strong Lifts and went progressively heavier from that. I put on about 20 LBs.0 -
StealthHealth wrote: »Macro percentages are, at best confusing, and at worst misleading. I think it's much better to work in grams.
OP - you wern't eating enough on your bulk - not sure how you got lean mass gain on 1500 cals?!? I think you should be able to reliably lose weigh on more than that.
1500 Calories for me is a lot!0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »If I remember correctly OP has a history of over exercising and undereating. I'd be more inclined to suggest reverse dieting.
Yeah, hey thanks for the reminder. That was then, this is now.
Anyway... what is reverse dieting?0 -
-
cushman5279 wrote: »
I meant, how many calories where you bulking on? How many weeks did it take you to gain 20 lbs.1 -
Please help with macros
Active 46yr old female would like to cut a bit for summer. Mma style boxing twice a week, cardio twice a week. Please advise...protein, fats, carbs %?
Julie0 -
cushman5279 wrote: »
I meant, how many calories where you bulking on? How many weeks did it take you to gain 20 lbs.
Ah okay, thanks for the clarification.
I was kind of half *kitten* weighing and measuring but trying to estimate a minimum of 1500 upward toward 1800/2000. I tore myself down to about 113 which was my rock-bottom (and my plan), then started rebuilding. It has taken me a couple of years to put weight back on. I took my time making sure to nourish myself and focus on muscle, not fat and not fall back into old habits.
As far as over-exercising as someone had mention before... I absolutely do! I am in a Muay Thai curriculum and I have monthly Rank Testing and legitimate sparring so daily training and conditioning is absolutely essential! I do take rest days but for the most part a daily routine is required to perfect the art, build endurance and agility. Also... the physical exhaustion aspect of training is important too. It may sound counter-intuitive but a fighter has to know they can maintain focus, speed and power even when physically and mentally exhausted.
As far as building muscle... MMA has nothing to do with muscle but like I said before, I wanted to eliminate the body fat and replace it with lean muscle.0 -
Did you even follow a structured lifting program?
And it's definitely going to be hard to give any recommendations on calorie level since it took 2 years to put on the weight.. its less than a lb a month and you weren't even really tracking. At best, I'd suggest sticking around 1500-1700 because that is what most women I know cut at.0 -
Did you even follow a structured lifting program?
And it's definitely going to be hard to give any recommendations on calorie level since it took 2 years to put on the weight.. its less than a lb a month and you weren't even really tracking. At best, I'd suggest sticking around 1500-1700 because that is what most women I know cut at.
Thanks!
Yes I began with strong lifts 5x5 starting with just the Olympic bar and progressed from there.
I was tracking but I was not being specific.. like tracking ounces vs. grams or picking more generic items or I would log something as one cup when really it was one and a half...
0 -
You say you gained 20lbs during your "bulk" that certainly was not all muscle. I'm guessing the large majority was fat and water especially since you admitted to not weighing any of the foods you were eating. In order to have a successful cut you must have a successful bulk first.1
-
-
Not to mention the "bulk" was so slow that it could very well be that not much fat was gained, even for a female. And OP has admitted to being underweight prior to gaining so it was probably good thing fat was gained.2
-
cushman5279 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »If I remember correctly OP has a history of over exercising and undereating. I'd be more inclined to suggest reverse dieting.
Yeah, hey thanks for the reminder. That was then, this is now.
Anyway... what is reverse dieting?
Reverse dieting is slowly getting back to maintenance from a cut as compared to immediately. It's what is recommended after a long cut. The theory is that your metabolism has gotten used to getting by on less calories (thinks it's dying) then if you immediately jump up to maintenance calories it decides to store fat instead of build muscle which isn't what you want. So instead you increase your calories by 3-5% per week until you get to maintenance. Let's pretend that takes 4 - 6 weeks or so.
I have no idea if it's correct, but it sounds good to me because slower is generally better than faster for keeping muscle and not fat.
1 -
cushman5279 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »If I remember correctly OP has a history of over exercising and undereating. I'd be more inclined to suggest reverse dieting.
Yeah, hey thanks for the reminder. That was then, this is now.
Anyway... what is reverse dieting?
Reverse dieting is slowly getting back to maintenance from a cut as compared to immediately. It's what is recommended after a long cut. The theory is that your metabolism has gotten used to getting by on less calories (thinks it's dying) then if you immediately jump up to maintenance calories it decides to store fat instead of build muscle which isn't what you want. So instead you increase your calories by 3-5% per week until you get to maintenance. Let's pretend that takes 4 - 6 weeks or so.
I have no idea if it's correct, but it sounds good to me because slower is generally better than faster for keeping muscle and not fat.
It's actually used to repair, or attempt to repair, adaptive thermogenesis (downregulation of the metabolism/a lowering of the BMR) which takes place for everyone who is cutting but at an higher degree when someone undereats consistently over a long period of time.
It would be highly unusual for someone training at the intensity and number of hours the OP is to be able to gain on 1800-2000 calories. Although I admit we can't be entirely sure those numbers are correct as she admits logging did get sloppy.
The approach taken is to add 100 calories to your day each week until you level out and return to what be a more expected maintenance.1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »If I remember correctly OP has a history of over exercising and undereating. I'd be more inclined to suggest reverse dieting.
Yeah, hey thanks for the reminder. That was then, this is now.
Anyway... what is reverse dieting?
Reverse dieting is slowly getting back to maintenance from a cut as compared to immediately. It's what is recommended after a long cut. The theory is that your metabolism has gotten used to getting by on less calories (thinks it's dying) then if you immediately jump up to maintenance calories it decides to store fat instead of build muscle which isn't what you want. So instead you increase your calories by 3-5% per week until you get to maintenance. Let's pretend that takes 4 - 6 weeks or so.
I have no idea if it's correct, but it sounds good to me because slower is generally better than faster for keeping muscle and not fat.
It's actually used to repair, or attempt to repair, adaptive thermogenesis (downregulation of the metabolism/a lowering of the BMR) which takes place for everyone who is cutting but at an higher degree when someone undereats consistently over a long period of time.
It would be highly unusual for someone training at the intensity and number of hours the OP is to be able to gain on 1800-2000 calories. Although I admit we can't be entirely sure those numbers are correct as she admits logging did get sloppy.
The approach taken is to add 100 calories to your day each week until you level out and return to what be a more expected maintenance.
Didn't I say that?
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions