Buffing up first, or cutting up first?
Well, since I wanted that buff, cut body, I thought it would make more sense to cut up then buff up.
But, some guys are telling me, buff up first then cut up.
. cutting up after buffing up, wouldnt I be wasting the hard work I went through to get buff?
another quick question..
Moderators: Boss Man, cassiegose
-
x_rated_mo
- ESTABLISHED MEMBER
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:57 am
- Location: Toronto
Well by cutting after a bulk, your calories will be sacrificed potentially, as to alter the macronutrient ratios, to say add more Carbs or Protein and lower Fat, might be a cut option, but due to Fats having over twice the calories per gram, than Proteins or Carbs, that could cut your calories back, to a point where some minor muscle sacrifice was enevitable.
I've read often of people bulking first. I mean you could cut first, but if the change in calories was enough, to potentially sacrifice muscle, most people who'd say gained say 5lb's of muscle, wouldn't want to lose at a rough estimate 10% of that, and end up cut, with a visable, but pretty flat looking six-pac, and flat physical definition, then they'd look very stringy or wirey.
If you bulked, and added around 20lb's of muscle first, even if the cut resulted in a similar 10% muscle loss, you'd sacrifice 2lb's leaving a net gain of 18, so you'd look more like an Olympic sprinter.
A lot of people do bulk in winter, then cut for the hotter months, because they like their results on show.
Presumably some guys then like to bulk a bit in the colder months, as the extra associated fat gains, help to keep them warm
Okay, ingore that last comment, but for me, I'd say bulk first, as you'll get a good knowledge of your bodies reaction to calorie intake, and what works for you, so the changes you make when you cut, would be more methodical, and less experimental or hit and miss.
I've read often of people bulking first. I mean you could cut first, but if the change in calories was enough, to potentially sacrifice muscle, most people who'd say gained say 5lb's of muscle, wouldn't want to lose at a rough estimate 10% of that, and end up cut, with a visable, but pretty flat looking six-pac, and flat physical definition, then they'd look very stringy or wirey.
If you bulked, and added around 20lb's of muscle first, even if the cut resulted in a similar 10% muscle loss, you'd sacrifice 2lb's leaving a net gain of 18, so you'd look more like an Olympic sprinter.
A lot of people do bulk in winter, then cut for the hotter months, because they like their results on show.
Presumably some guys then like to bulk a bit in the colder months, as the extra associated fat gains, help to keep them warm
Okay, ingore that last comment, but for me, I'd say bulk first, as you'll get a good knowledge of your bodies reaction to calorie intake, and what works for you, so the changes you make when you cut, would be more methodical, and less experimental or hit and miss.