Hello all
Say for instance your main goal is fat loss (ripped with a good physique). Would it be better to first bulk up and then cut or would it be better to go full out fat loss, then followed by adding lean muscle.
I know the real difference between the two is mainly diet (eating 20% over maintenance calories for bulking, and eating 20% under maintence calories for fat loss) and ofcourse the difference in cardio.
Thanks in advance
Bulk up, and then cut?
Moderators: Boss Man, cassiegose
Personally I'd say bulk. If you cut first, and reduce your calories, or even just alter the ratios, you might run the risk of losing any muscle mass you've got, and if you're just someone with normal adult / teenage mass, you might jeopardise some of that, not to mention potentially loss of conditioning, of the Bones and Connective tissues, and then you lose some protection of the Muscular Skeletal system, from things like damage / diseases
If you bulk first, you can maniuplate your calories, to get some size, then try playing around with them to get more definition, as you'll have some idea of what you're doing calorie wise.
Plus doing good weights should be metabolically advantageous, which means you'll shed fat to some degree doing weights, when you are ready for a cut.
I mean chances are, you add some muscle then cut, you may still lose some mass, as the reduction of calories will not promote muscular equilibrium, so maintenance of existing mass, would be very hard, but altering your calories / Cardio, and maybe weights too, would allow you to track losses, and see if they are looking like mostly Fat Mass, or Fat and Muscle mass together.
If you cut first then try to bulk, you might find you increase your calories too much, and do what's known as dirty bulking, I.E. gaining Muscle mass, with potentially more Fat mass than you have to.
I mean big dudes unless they juice, can't have massive size and cuts, but people who are say maybe as much as 16" Arms, should be able to, so up to a point, caloric intake can facilitate Muscle gains, without too much Fat storage, but if you bulk, and get yourself tested, E.G weighed, bf% test, etc etc, you should be able to ascertain pretty well, how much of the bulk is clean, and how much is dirty, and then when you cut, you'll have some idea of what you can reduce from your diet, that yields the least Muscle losses.
By then you're calorie intake will be such, that any slight loss of things like Bone Density, Connective tissue strength, and Immune System boosters in your diet, won't cause as much risk to your Muscular Skeletal condition, and Immune health, as much as Cutting first might.
Others may differ on this point, but for me, I think Bulk then Cut. Hopefully you understand reasons for this.
Addendum
If you Bulk then Cut, you'll be able to get back any lost mass from the cut, faster on a second bulk, because of the surrounding muscle tissues, being partially stretched, and therefore providing less muscle resistance, potentially speeding up recovery of any lost mass.
If you bulk first, you can maniuplate your calories, to get some size, then try playing around with them to get more definition, as you'll have some idea of what you're doing calorie wise.
Plus doing good weights should be metabolically advantageous, which means you'll shed fat to some degree doing weights, when you are ready for a cut.
I mean chances are, you add some muscle then cut, you may still lose some mass, as the reduction of calories will not promote muscular equilibrium, so maintenance of existing mass, would be very hard, but altering your calories / Cardio, and maybe weights too, would allow you to track losses, and see if they are looking like mostly Fat Mass, or Fat and Muscle mass together.
If you cut first then try to bulk, you might find you increase your calories too much, and do what's known as dirty bulking, I.E. gaining Muscle mass, with potentially more Fat mass than you have to.
I mean big dudes unless they juice, can't have massive size and cuts, but people who are say maybe as much as 16" Arms, should be able to, so up to a point, caloric intake can facilitate Muscle gains, without too much Fat storage, but if you bulk, and get yourself tested, E.G weighed, bf% test, etc etc, you should be able to ascertain pretty well, how much of the bulk is clean, and how much is dirty, and then when you cut, you'll have some idea of what you can reduce from your diet, that yields the least Muscle losses.
By then you're calorie intake will be such, that any slight loss of things like Bone Density, Connective tissue strength, and Immune System boosters in your diet, won't cause as much risk to your Muscular Skeletal condition, and Immune health, as much as Cutting first might.
Others may differ on this point, but for me, I think Bulk then Cut. Hopefully you understand reasons for this.
Addendum
If you Bulk then Cut, you'll be able to get back any lost mass from the cut, faster on a second bulk, because of the surrounding muscle tissues, being partially stretched, and therefore providing less muscle resistance, potentially speeding up recovery of any lost mass.
i'd go with jd...depends where you are now...if your fat there's no use getting fatter while bulking but if your already lean than you might as well bulk...as a reference if you're below 12% than bulk until at 15 - 16% than lean back down...if you're below 10 only bulk until at 13 - 14 and lean down...this way you might add 5pds, lean down 2 - 3 and gain 2 pds of muscle...this is a much safer way than doing a 12 week bulk and adding 25pds with 18pds of fat
-
hightreason
- STARTING OUT
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:53 pm