Is he right /fit/? Is bulking/cutting just a meme?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3AG-oCXTE
>>36144999
>tfw so deep in the memes you forget how the human body works
Ofc you can "burn" fat and gain muscle at the same time. Doesn't mean there are more efficient ways of doing it.
>>36144999
Nice trips.
That's not how thermodynamics works. Building muscle requires a surplus of energy. Losing fat requires an energy deficit. Now there are grey areas where you CAN lose fat and build muscle, but those grey areas exist because fat is essentially just energy and the loss of fat is what supplies the energy to build the muscle.
Now you could get the perfect amount of calories to build muscle and not gain any fat, but that's very hard to do efficiently. What happens most of the time is you don't get enough energy in so you don't build as much muscle as possible or you get too much energy and build some fat. This is why people have developed the bulking/cutting "seasons". It's much easier to just eat a surplus and build as much muscle as you possibly can and then shed that fat at a later date.
Broscience in the house.
Telling someone not to bulk / cut is basically ensuring that person spins their wheels forever.
Good idea if you want to break others down and make them fail.
I assume atthlenefag is talking about people who bulk on like 9000 calories and cut on 1000 calories, that's obviously retarded.
>>36145086
This desu. Spout all the memescience you want but the fact is, the gains I make on a 500kcal bulk are far greater than those at maintenance. And when I cut back, I keep most of the gains. I'm gonna go with the tried and true here.
>>36144999
just do a really slow clean bulk and you wont ever get fat
>>36144999
bulking/cuttng is a meme created by bodybuilders to mask obvious steroid use
>>36145063
Over the course of just one day, your body switches between anabolic and catabolic states.
You can't do both SIMULTANEOUSLY but you can do both over the course of a day
>>36145267
Nobody besides untrained lifters and guys on gear can lose fat and gain muscle at the same time.
Bulking and cutting is a meme that needs to die for everyone that doesnt roid.
>>36144999
Not unless you just started out, lifting.
As you become intermediate and advance, you need more calories to increase muscle growth. When you cut your calories, your lifts will stall and/ or regress as you loose fat and some muscle.
But you have to keep lifting as hard as you can to minimize the muscle loss... and DO NOT cut calories too much too fast.
It's best to cut slowly.
the male body does a decent job of putting on more muscle than fat if done right. it also does a decent job of losing more fat than muscle if done right. Combine this with aas and you have a winning combination.
2 steps forward and 1/2 step back vs 1 step forward
Super clean bulking is a long, boring, but safe road. Its more suited for the female body.
As for the video, hes talking about FUCKING NOOB GAINS. Everyone is going to gain muscle and lose fat when theyre new and have a good diet. Big fucking whoop.
>>36145291
man you must have a really shitty diet
>>36144999
Yes, the bulk/cut cycle thing is mostly driven by laziness and paranoia. Laziness, because it's hard to hit exactly your maintenance on average, paranoia because when people work out, they tend to be scared that they won't get any gains, so they eat too much. But the guy is right—if you watch your diet closely, you'll never need to cut or bulk, you just need to micromanage your intake. You won't lose 10 lbs of fat and put on 2 lbs of lean mass in a month like that of course, but losing a pound of fat and putting on a pound of muscle per month is perfectly possible.
No its bullshit. You need energy to synthesize muscle. So technically, if you have 100% super precise diet with caloric surplus just above to provide for that, you'd be burning fat and growing LBM at the same time, and for a normal human its bar impossible. Clean bulk is still the best option possible
Also fuck that faglord Cavaliere, his clickbait videos, his retarded ads, and his retarded broscience
>>36144999
Ofc it's a meme, just try to start low on body fat (10/9%) and get muscle as clean as possible.
Everytime you do a "bulk/cut" cycle is gonna be harder to lose fat.
>>36146460
Yeah that's because each cycle you get less and less fat. If people do a dirty bulk more than once then they're too lost to ever have their goal body.
>>36146500
Everytime you do a "bulk/cut" cycle your physiology changes so it is easier to accumulate fat in the future. And that is because your insulin sensitivity and your ratio of test-estrogen is reduced. Also, you develop new adipocytes (hyperplasia) which means you develop new and bigger "cells of fat".
>>36146460
Yeah, slow but safe.
Guys noob here, I'm bulking right now since I'm a skellington, however when I get swole should I just eat at maint?
>>36146603
Interested in this, source?
>>36146765
I just translated a spanish book about nutrition called "El Plan Revolucionario" which basically explains all the myths about nutrition with scientific studies and sources.
I highly recommend it if you know spanish because the book explains everything you need to know and why (theory) and how to actually do it (practice).
>>36146603
This is true. The general public is under the assumption that fat cells come and go with weight fluctuation I guess, but every fat cell you've created since birth is there to stay. Going above the highest bf% youve previously held (roughly 15% for the average person on earth) will create new fat cells that never go away. Fat cells never go away. They only shrink or expand and multiply. If you cut to 5%, your fat cells are still there. Just smaller. Which is why I tell skinnyfats to cut while everyone else tells them to "BULK FAGGOT". Yea good luck with that.
You can physically suck the fat cells out with lipo, but they will eventually come back. Neat huh? Have fun fatties.
>>36146887
Thanks for sharing. English is not my first language so I don't want to give people wrong or false information that's why it was such a brief explanation.
>>36146887
You act as if that matters.
You don't just magically gain more bodyfat out of thin air from having more fat cells. It's still calories in vs calories out. Having 60 billion fat cells compared to 30 billion fat cells doesn't mean you're going to look any different when you're lean.
>>36146913
How many "bulk/cut" cycles do you think the guy from the pic has done?
What i'm trying to say is that the best way to be lean is to never ever be a fatty.
>>36144999
Yes, it is.
Along with other shit /fat/asses believe.
I do so love going on cluebat expeditions. Truth-trolling is best trolling.
>>36146949
Look. I will agree that not getting fat to begin with is the best possible thing you can do. But the fact is you cannot avoid fat gain if you want to gain size. It's damn near impossible. Lean-Gains type people usually do not make any more gains after the noob phase is over. The fact is the muscle tissue cannot be created out of thin air, just like fat. You need a surplus, so even if it's just a small surplus, a % of that surplus is going to be fat, you cannot avoid it. You cannot avoid the bulk/cut meme if you want to actually make significant progress.
Recomping has an extremely high fail rate for everyone who tries doing it. I did it myself for a year and basically made zero progress either way. It's a total waste of time. You're better off picking to be big and strong, or pick to be small and aesthetic. You cannot do both at the same time. This goes for both natural and enhanced lifters.
Yes. You should use Athlean-X (TM) if you want to become thick, solid.
>>36146681
>I'm bulking
Quit that shit.
https://youtu.be/ClbEBbH8b38
>>36146970
>even if it's just a small surplus, a % of that surplus is going to be fat, you cannot avoid it
Okay, can you explain why exactly, without bringing any bro- or mumscience in? No? That's too bad.
>>36146991
Go do your own research faggot, Ive done it years ago. How new are you to lifting? Maybe go lift and diet for a few more years before you come on here making assumptions about things you have no idea about, child. Yeah, that's right - I called you a child, because you have the ignorance of a child, child. Go run off now.
>>36146970
The thing discussed here is that doing a massive bulk eating way too much, getting a lot of fat and then doing a cut, starving to death is not gonna work. Because the body doesnt work like that.
Rather than extend the phase volume to achieve the desired muscle, we incorporate intermediate cycles of definition to avoid crossing a maximum threshold of % body fat, thus minimizing the potential problems that I just mentioned.
>>36147039
Btw, the graph is in spanish so
Volumen = Bulk
Definición = Cut
% de Grasa = Body fat %
Ganancia de músculo = Muscle gain
>>36147026
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in guerrilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across theUSAand your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
>>36145086
>Telling someone not to bulk / cut is basically ensuring that person spins their wheels forever.
Not really. Jeff says clean bulk is the way to go. Anyway, I never paid an attention to dieting, I never bulked or cut, I never went over 15% body fat, yet I gained 20 kilos of mass.
>>36145344
>When you cut your calories, your lifts will stall and/ or regress as you loose fat and some muscle.
I'm on my first real cut. Holy fuck is this true. I always heard/read about this, and assumed it was true (it makes sense from what little I know of biology) but I had no idea what it felt like. Weight that was only hard but far from impossible a few weeks ago is like trying to move a goddamn mountain now. It's pretty discouraging, but I look so much better.
>>36147138
Same thing here. First cut. The way I work out now is that I oscillate the weight, one day I do 3x6-type of lifts, the other day I do 3x20-type of lifts. What I notice is that while my strength doesn't get better at all, my endurance does get better, not as quickly as I'm used to, but it's still progress.
>>36144999
no
you can burn fat and gain muscle at the same time
i've done it after i cut 2 year ago i stayed lean and gain a few lb of muscle
BUT
eating at a proper surplus is far more efficient at gaining
Stick to a smaller surplus
try to stay lean whilst bulking don't just go over board
for the 2 year i stayed lean and was in a slight deficit i gained a few lb of muscle but my strength never once went up
its for faggots who are scared of not looking their best
>>36144999
>thinly veiled casein shill
>>36145291
I've been lifting for years and recomping works fucking great for me.
You're showing your inexperience m8 there's science backing it up in trained lifters
You simply don't need a caloric deficit to build muscle, you DO to maximize muscle growth in a smaller period of time, but at the same time that's all the more time you have to cut after anyways, so are they really any different in terms of length of time?
People tend to just like cutting/bulking better because it's easier to see progress, but one isn't necessarily better or more efficient than the other.
I prefer recomping and lean bulking like Jonnie Candito, can lose fat while eating comfortably, and build a tiny amount of muscle and keep strength/get stronger at the same time, when comfortable with leanness, lean bulk very slowly until my abs are getting covered up again and gain muscle at a more efficient rate, but not allowing myself to get fat to where I really need a hard cut
>>36144999
no link to the 'study', pushes supps
>>36144999
A study of obese fucktards means nothing. Fit people below 15%bf can barely gain more muscle even on bulk.
Whats /fit/s stance on carb cycling?
As in
>no carbs, slight deficit on rest days
>normal carb intake with slight surplus on training days
Does it actually make a difference or eventually you just even out and make no gainz?
>>36146887
I thought that new fat cells were only created when you reached significantly higher bf (obese).
As someone skinnyfat I am going to have to look at this closer, thx.
>>36144999
>Is bulking/cutting just a meme?
Yes
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2011/08/what-exactly-is-ideal-to-cut-or-not-to.html?zx=e92d87704c315a95
>All of this is, of course, fucking nonsense. One's primary concern when entering a strength competition is winning. As such, you should be focused entirely on what it takes to win. If you're already focused on what it would take to win, you should be focused on what you can do to fucking embarrass everyone around you for even showing up. Thus, having the highest possible relative strength should be your primary concern, rather than the greatest absolute strength. This, of course, flies in the face of the conventional online wisdom that "he who lifts the most wins", as anyone who's not a sloppy fucking mass of adipose tissue would be far more impressed with a stupendous lift by a guy with visable musculature than they would with a Louis Cyr lookalike's world-shattering lift. This is why everyone shits their pants about Stan Efferding, Joe Ladnier, and Matt Kroczaleski when there's a new record broken in the squat by a different circus fat man every 45 minutes. This is also the reason why most of you know who 170 lb Bulgarian Olympic Ivan Stoitsov is, and have seen his pic a thousand times, but have no idea who Tatiana Kashirina is, in spite of the fact that she probably clean and jerks what you deadlift. (cont)
>>36147750
>(cont) If you're wondering why no one knows the name of a fat Russian chick who holds the world record in the clean and press and the snatch (a chick who probably outlifts the vast majority of us on just about everything), don't. Fat people aren't really people- they're placeholders where people should be. No one wants to look at them, strong or not, nor be around them long enough to locate their genitalia and fuck. They look like shit, wheeze when they breathe, and are in mortal danger of stroking out when doing anything other than doing a single repetition on one of their pet exercises or eating. This doesn't change much when a fat guy or girl picks up something heavy- we expect them to be able to do so when the object they're lifting is a fraction of their bodyweight, no matter how heavy that object is. Thus, if really doesn't matter that a fat person is all that strong. You might be thinking, however, that you're not necessarily morbidly obese, but just have a "powerful torso" or somesuch. All that means is that you're leaving weight on the table by which you might be able to fuck up the competition. For instance, if you're competing 235 and sitting on something around 20% bodyfat, you're doing yourself a fucking disservice if you're competing at 242 because you're too fucking lazy to diet a bit. That extra bodyfat is doing nothing but holding you back from greatness, as you could ostensibly be crushing shit at 220, or dominating everyone and looking ridiculous (Chinese Olympic weightlifting style) at 198.
everyone who says bulking is not worthmthey talk about a bulk eher people eat like 1000 kcal surplus
>>36147750
>>36147773
>blogspot
Bulking is easier to gain maximum lifting ability though
In terms of muscle mass you will reach maximum mass eventually as long as you eat at a surplus ie clean bulk
Bulk/cut is not necessary but it isnt a meme, bbers have comp seasons so they have a limited window to build their bodies before prep time
My workouts are a lot longer than 40 minutes. I do dynamic stretches and warm-up sets, static stretches between sets and at the end of the workout. Sometimes I have to wait for the equippment to become available. How do you guys cope with this?
>>36147992
Just don't listen to retarded advice. There's absolutely nothing with taking long breaks, especially when you train for strength. You want to approach each set fully rested, if it takes 5 minutes rest for fucking 5 minutes
>>36145063
Brah, remember that the human body isn't some simple engine that you pour fuel into and it works or doesn't. The cal in cal out model is oversimplified.
>>36145086
>Telling someone not to bulk / cut is basically ensuring that person spins their wheels forever.
Exactly, that's the point. I think he literally said in the video "if you don't make any gains you must buy more of my high quality protein. :^)"
When someone introduces himself as "pro athlete physical therapist," you can already tell he's full of shit.
Everything he says leads to gains are completely useless phrases. "Quality of sleep," "overtraining" and "high quality protein." None of those things hold any meaning and couldn't be measured objectively. But they give him an excuse when the sheeps that follow him don't make any gains
>oh you didn't sleep enough
>you've been overtraining man
>your protein wasn't high quality enough
>just buy my more expensive even higher quality protein and you'll definitely defy physics :^)
I seriously hope no one is falling for this shit.
>>36148302
That's right. The first rule of thermodynamics is cals in cals out, but to suggest that's all that matters is ridiculus. Here's a simple comparison that should make this easy to understand. Do each one seperately.
Eat 500 calories worth of steak.
Eat 500 calories worth of fries.
Eat 500 calories worth of cucumber.
Tell me you feel the same after each.
You can't. You're bofy reacts differently to each.
>>36146456
what if that energy is stored around your waist as fat then your body has access to the surplus energy needed to build muscle, so long as those muscles are being stimulated
>>36148376
>Tell me you feel
I love how you talk big about thermodynamics and then try to use feelings as proof.
>>36148355
ok I agree with almost everything you said except
>quality of sleep
Have you ever had a bad sleep? Now have you ever had a good sleep? That's quality fucking sleep nigga.
>>36148376
i feel full now having eaten a medium steak medium fries and 3 cucumbers
thanks dicked
>>36148408
>>36148376
Anyone talking about thermodynamics in relation to the digestion of food is a fucking pleb because the law of thermodynamics applies to internal combustion engines and not a fucking human metabolism.
>>36148418
as long as you get 30 sets of low volume sleep a month then your all good
>>36148408
How you feel matters
>>36148435
you sound like my fucking wife
>>36148418
I'm not saying those things don't matter. I'm saying they're shitty arguments. Of course protein matters. Of course sleep matters. But for something like 95% of people an hour of extra sleep or their decision to use whey over casein won't be the crucial factor that determines their gains.
>>36148474
that extra hour can absolutely determine your gains. Especially once you're past intermediate and starting to progress more slowly.
Reminder that this guy believes in spot reduction
>>36148443
And you don't believe and trust in your wife?
>>36148508
does he i've never seen that
>>36148530
bla bla anon cant you eat normal and be less angry
>>36148530
to be fair she is lucky i had some carbs today
>>36148408
It's YEAR. Societies now accept that feelings stem from chemical reactions in the body. Deficiencies etc.
Not even gonna argue that video, even if you can gain muscle and burn fat simultaneously, which you probably can't without Athlean-X endorsed Super Gains Casein 100% (tm), growth will be slow and the net result worse than average cut/bulk cycle. Why are people so afraid/apprehensive to bulk anyway? Losing fat takes VASTLY less effort and time than gaining muscle. Its as simple as eating one meal less.
>>36148553
Pics of wife please
>>36148557
psst "2016"
>>36148571
Sorry, my 'John Oliver' bot was solely programmed for 2015 and prior.
>>36144999
Yes because decades of bodybuilding and lifting of testing and trying new shit were pointless and everyone involved was a dumbass. Until this one guy on youtube showed up. Whew... thank god.
>>36148490
Do you have any scientific evidence to back that up?
>>36148568
it seems i don't have many
>>36148622
I feel the same way about many topics people post on here.
It is good to question mainstream advice, but when you are saying something the complete opposite of what has been established through 50+ years of trial and error, you may want to take a step back.
>>36148655
>dem glutes
hnnnnnnnnnnnnng
>>36148270
I train for both strength and aesthetics. I want it all. Sometimes when I'm well rested and feel I can go harder, I keep the rests shorter, which shortens my workout a little. Thanks brah.
>>36144999
Bulking and cutting is only for the extremely dedicated and/or chemically enhanced.
Eating around or a little over maintenance taking account for your physical activity [clean bulking essentially] is the healthiest way to be physically fit and strong.
That said, most people on site don't give a fuck and either care about being as strong as possible or as aesthetic as possible and they do whatever they have to do it get there.
>>36148568
forgot img
>>36148655
I think I'd give her the natty lickaroo.
>>36148270
3-5 minutes is the ideal rest period for strength sets, ie working at 80+% of your 1rm. taking more than 5 minutes isn't smart though because you will end up needing to warm up again.
>>36148719
60 - 90 seconds i don't have time for 3-5 minutes between sets
>>36148726
then you're not lifting heavy enough.
>>36146887
>>36147724
This. New adypocytes are highly suspected to be created only when the already present ones get saturated. I am very skeptical about this "every bulk cycle makes it harder" thing, as long as you don't bulk too quickly or to a too high bf.
Well desu every cut cycle becomes harder because your metabolism changes as you get older, but that's another matter.
>>36148759
i lift to failure
>>36146887
So you're basically saying that people who are fat are already doomed to being fat? Then why do you retards then waste so much time hating on fat people if they're already "broken"?
>>36149009
to make our self's feel better?
to make our self's feel repulsed so that we don't go lard mode
i don't hate on fat people but i am a former fatty
>>36149009
No he is saying that you cannot lower the number of fat cells in your body (outside of surgery), but you can shrink them regardless.
Additionally engorged fat cells do many things that promulgate fat gain.
So cutting to a good BF% is generally a better first step than bulking.
>>36146969
>8gag
>>36148425
plz be troll
>>36144999
>workouts shouldn't be longer than 40 minutes
Nigga what the fuck it takes me 40 minutes to do squats and like 4 sets of lunges
