I would not say to cut and bulk in large cycles, because that's get fatter, get slimmer, get fatter, get slimmer. I would suggest to break things down into manageable cycles of slight calorie surpluses and slight calorie deficits.
That ends being the case for most people (me included!). I like your approach and hadn't heard much about it before.
__________________
"You want science and studies? F**k you. I’ve got scars and blood and vomit." -Jim Wendler
I know you were being dramatic about going a year, but there are people who might do that without any real checking or changing of processes. I've answered posts, PMs, and emails from people who write that they have been following _____ for 6 months and are getting frustrated because they are fatter or not-leaner. They saw that nothing has been happening, but the program said to do ______ so they just kept plugging along. They assume that it's going to work eventually? ......IMO (partially based on my own fat to not-fat transition), going a long period of time with little feedback on fat/muscle changes is a bad thing and could lead to loss of motivation. While you have the scale to indicate that you are not eating too much or too little, the other changes can be painfully slow.
Uh... No, actually I am not being dramatic at all. I think I am being very realistic. Recomping takes a year or years to do given that you have a 10 or more lb recomp. It isn't the same thing as dropping lbs. That is pretty straightforward. How long did it take you for example to reach your level of fat loss and muscle gain (both)? It doesn't matter if you do bulk/cut or if you do it slow or fast, it takes a long time. Much longer than just fat loss. The difference is that with the bulk/cut method you can actually see things happen so that is what people tend to do. That doesn't mean it is best though.
But you are right very right about the lack of feedback and how hard that is. That is why I suggest that pictures be taken and evaluated every few months. The only way I have been able to stay on my recomp plan is because Alan is making me. LOL! Seriously. We are such scale whores and we cannot be objective about our pictures even so it is really challenging mentally.
What you do with your low and high cal days is simply the way that you stick to your calorie amounts to allow the recomp that you are doing. You prefer this method because you hate to track. Your system took you a long time to figure out if I remember correctly but it is pretty honed now and working exceptionally. I prefer and am able to use detailed tracking to do that same goal. My system also took some time to figure out but work exceptionally. Both methods work just fine and result is the same at the end of the year. The key point is to find a way to eat at or near maintenance and then find a way to measure your progress since the scale is not gonna tell you a lot day by day.
I have never met anyone who was doing a carefully thought out recomp plan who can stick with it for any length of time without some feedback. Pics are the best if you can't hire/have an Alan.
So Roland... Just for fun.... now that you are quite lean, are you still pushing for scale changes? If so, what is your average loss like?
I am still pushing for fat loss so play more in a very slight deficit. Scale changes about .7lbs a month for me. It is SOOOOOOO weird.
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
Uh... No, actually I am not being dramatic at all. I think I am being very realistic. Recomping takes a year or years to do given that you have a 10 or more lb recomp. It isn't the same thing as dropping lbs. That is pretty straightforward. How long did it take you for example to reach your level of fat loss and muscle gain (both)? It doesn't matter if you do bulk/cut or if you do it slow or fast, it takes a long time. Much longer than just fat loss. The difference is that with the bulk/cut method you can actually see things happen so that is what people tend to do. That doesn't mean it is best though.
I'm not doing a bulk/cut method right now, but over the past few years I have done it with straight fat loss, straight muscle gain, and some periods like I described.
Quote:
But you are right very right about the lack of feedback and how hard that is. That is why I suggest that pictures be taken and evaluated every few months. The only way I have been able to stay on my recomp plan is because Alan is making me. LOL! Seriously. We are such scale whores and we cannot be objective about our pictures even so it is really challenging mentally.
Good! You didn't mention monthly pictures. You said be brave a year with badass before and afters. Every few months is better.
Quote:
What you do with your low and high cal days is simply the way that you stick to your calorie amounts to allow the recomp that you are doing. You prefer this method because you hate to track.
Actually, I believe that my lows burn fat better and my highs build muscle better (and allow me to eat a more satisfying amount of food). I think highs and lows are better than just dancing around maintanence all the time.
Quote:
Your system took you a long time to figure out if I remember correctly but it is pretty honed now and working exceptionally.
No. What took time was trying to find a way to not count calories and keep my appetite in control. I'm always hungry, and that's an issue for me. This method works perfectly when I follow the math.
Quote:
Both methods work just fine and result is the same at the end of the year. The key point is to find a way to eat at or near maintenance and then find a way to measure your progress since the scale is not gonna tell you a lot day by day.
maybe it will be the same. If you dance just at maintance all the time, you have few times above or below your calorie needs. Those periods might result in almost zero change.
Quote:
So Roland... Just for fun.... now that you are quite lean, are you still pushing for scale changes? If so, what is your average loss like?
Yes. To get lean quickly, you have to lose weight. I'm only cycling lows and just at maintenance level (or one day just slightly above), not low and high.
Actually, I believe that my lows burn fat better and my highs build muscle better (and allow me to eat a more satisfying amount of food). I think highs and lows are better than just dancing around maintanence all the time.
maybe it will be the same. If you dance just at maintance all the time, you have few times above or below your calorie needs. Those periods might result in almost zero change.
On what do you base these assumptions? I do not believe (from the things I read) that there is a difference. Here are the possible scenarios...
1. Person eats average of 1800 cals a day for a week doing the way you do it.
2. Person eats average of 1800 cals a day doing only mild cycles of change.
3. Person eats average of 1800 cals a day on straight linear diet.
Results are going to be the same I think with respect to fat loss. The most important thing we should all focus on is getting the calories right for the goal. Beyond that then we should focus on macro manipulation.
In your scenario, you may be doing carb-ups which tend to help some people in the gym. Some people (I think it is those who do well on LC diets) do well with severe carb ups and downs. Some people do not do as well. That whole part of it is pretty individual and FAR less important than getting the right number of calories for a proper recomp as opposed to dropping weigh or gaining weight quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Dog
Yes. To get lean quickly, you have to lose weight. I'm only cycling lows and just at maintenance level (or one day just slightly above), not low and high.
But you risk losing muscle if you get lean too quickly when you are already lean. I was just wondering if you are being calculative about how much scale weight you drop or if you are just sort of letting it happen.
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
The only people needing to mess around with recomping are those with several years worth of training behind them, and the foundation of muscle mass to show for it.
Otherwise there's little need.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
I just wrote my frickin' long story and lost the whole thing to Starbuck's black hole of internet connectivity!
Thank them for encouraging me to write less, below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerManDL
The only people needing to mess around with recomping are those with several years worth of training behind them, and the foundation of muscle mass to show for it.
Otherwise there's little need.
6 years ago I was fat. Fat all my life. After a year of lifting and losing, I tried the cut/bulk thing and mostly got fat(ter) fast and lean(er) slowly and painfully.
A few years ago, I bought Kelly Baggett's No Bull and Lyle's UD2. Kelly's program was to put on mass without the fat. It does it via 7, 10, or 14 day cycles, although the time frame is yours to choose. It's just a template and teaches you how to lay it out.
In about 6 months, I gained 5 pounds of scale weight and lost enough fat to go from no abs AT ALL to two abs fully showing and two more poking through.
I'll admit that even if cycling like this is the same as taking a steady approach, I would do it because I can more easily go really low for just a day or two than get more fat and have to diet it off for weeks to get back to lean. I have gone 6 months right about maintanence (scale didn't move at all) and really nothing happened except I getting stronger. No "recomp" happened.
On what do you base these assumptions? I do not believe (from the things I read) that there is a difference. Here are the possible scenarios...
1. Person eats average of 1800 cals a day for a week doing the way you do it.
2. Person eats average of 1800 cals a day doing only mild cycles of change.
3. Person eats average of 1800 cals a day on straight linear diet.
Results are going to be the same I think with respect to fat loss. The most important thing we should all focus on is getting the calories right for the goal. Beyond that then we should focus on macro manipulation.
Yes, if you're eating low enough for fat loss. The discussion is regarding maintenance, though. At maintenence, especially for those who might eat 6 meals a day, you will have very little time in a deficit or surplus, so very little will happen.
Quote:
But you risk losing muscle if you get lean too quickly when you are already lean. I was just wondering if you are being calculative about how much scale weight you drop or if you are just sort of letting it happen
I believe the camp that says if you're lifting weights and eating enough protein that you aren't going to be losing much muscle.
I believe that people who lose all that muscle didn't have it to begin with. The had water in their cells, connective tissue to hold them together, and food in their bellies. A couple of bodily functions later, and suddenly they've lost muscle.
I believe the camp that says if you're lifting weights and eating enough protein that you aren't going to be losing much muscle.
I believe that people who lose all that muscle didn't have it to begin with. The had water in their cells, connective tissue to hold them together, and food in their bellies. A couple of bodily functions later, and suddenly they've lost muscle.
Pretty much.
I've gone from just under 97kg to 88-89kg in about 8 weeks, and improved strength in the mean time. My squat's actually up near all-time PR levels for 10 reps and my benching isn't doing that bad given the shoulders. In any case I'm definitely not weaker on anything and am stronger on most everything.
Even my calipering backs up the idea that I haven't lost muscle, at least within the error of my measuring.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
I
...I have gone 6 months right about maintanence (scale didn't move at all) and really nothing happened except I getting stronger. No "recomp" happened.
Huh? Isn't this THE IDEAL definition of "recomp"? No or very little scale weight lost but gaining strength? You gained strength and lost no weight.... I am thinking WOW that is great!
I would be pissed as hell if I lost scale weight faster than I gained strength btw....
It seems like your definintion of "recomp" is that it has to be associated with scale weight change.
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
I've gone from just under 97kg to 88-89kg in about 8 weeks, and improved strength in the mean time. My squat's actually up near all-time PR levels for 10 reps and my benching isn't doing that bad given the shoulders. In any case I'm definitely not weaker on anything and am stronger on most everything.
Even my calipering backs up the idea that I haven't lost muscle, at least within the error of my measuring.
Matt: This actually brings up a great topic for me... You said that you are gaining strength BUT that you are coming back too. Doesn't that sort of negate all your strength claims? I am asking because I am coming back now from an SI strain that I got over July 4th and am gaining strength every week but am not yet were I was in my bulk. Do you take the measurement or bar from where you were at the top of your bulk when you get injured or do you take it from where you currently are? Also do you measure strength gain/loss to your total volume and weights during your bulk or just weights? For example, in my bulk I could do 225lb deads 5x5. Now I can only do 2x5 at 225lbs. Have I lost strength or muscle or is it okay/expected to lose endurance?
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
There's an extra confound in my case because when I refer to all-time PRs, I'm also discussing PRs that were set several years ago with chemical assistance. So to be approaching that level again w/o that help is a big thing, especially given the diet. Of course with me there's always confounds, such as strength gains being hampered by injuries and whatnot over the years.
That said, a combo of patience and a ton of rehab/corrective work has kept me healthy enough in the last few months to really start hammering things out again. The loss of body mass isn't affecting it in any case - not yet anyway.
I never make it a point to test any sort of endurance on a diet so I have no idea. I keep my sets to a minimum because it's more productive to use higher weights and lower volumes.
As far as 5x5 deadlifts, I really have no idea becasue I wouldn't do that even on a bulk. Deadlifts that aren't 1-2 reps get one good set and that's it. But as long as that one good set stays the same or goes up, I'm happy.
I don't tend to compare volume/workload for that reason, though I will gauge relative effort on comparable sets. If say 500 for N reps is an all-out effort and then 500 x N-2 is an all-out effort after dropping a lot of weight, it's pretty safe to bet I've lost strength even though the weight is still the same.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Huh? Isn't this THE IDEAL definition of "recomp"? No or very little scale weight lost but gaining strength? You gained strength and lost no weight.... I am thinking WOW that is great!
I would be pissed as hell if I lost scale weight faster than I gained strength btw....
It seems like your definintion of "recomp" is that it has to be associated with scale weight change.
If no recomp happened, I think he means that he hasn't gained or lost a noticeable amount of fat or muscle, hence his body composition is pretty much the same.
Yes, if you're eating low enough for fat loss. The discussion is regarding maintenance, though. At maintenence, especially for those who might eat 6 meals a day, you will have very little time in a deficit or surplus, so very little will happen.
I believe the camp that says if you're lifting weights and eating enough protein that you aren't going to be losing much muscle.
I believe that people who lose all that muscle didn't have it to begin with. The had water in their cells, connective tissue to hold them together, and food in their bellies. A couple of bodily functions later, and suddenly they've lost muscle.
For people who start out fatter I am 100% with you. I am not so sure on this for people who are very lean (like women below 15% and men below 10% or so) I tend to believe that a lot of people who report that they do not lose strength are not lifting to thier fullest potential to begin with. Obviously this isn't the case with some people but most people do not know how to train with intensity in the first place so it becames an invalid measurement really. (this is completely out of my ass thinking so it may be totally washed up but thought I'd throw that out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon C
If no recomp happened, I think he means that he hasn't gained or lost a noticeable amount of fat or muscle, hence his body composition is pretty much the same.
Ah hah... Yes of course. In context of the entire post this makes sense. (Sorry Roland) So now I have one other question regarding your personal experience if you will bear with me through one more.
Are you fairly positive that your compliance was the same on both diets and training methods? It seems that you have compliance issues with a more linear approach and I am wondering if that was more the problem to the lack of results?
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
.....
I never make it a point to test any sort of endurance on a diet so I have no idea. I keep my sets to a minimum because it's more productive to use higher weights and lower volumes.
As far as 5x5 deadlifts, I really have no idea becasue I wouldn't do that even on a bulk. Deadlifts that aren't 1-2 reps get one good set and that's it. But as long as that one good set stays the same or goes up, I'm happy.
I don't tend to compare volume/workload for that reason, though I will gauge relative effort on comparable sets. If say 500 for N reps is an all-out effort and then 500 x N-2 is an all-out effort after dropping a lot of weight, it's pretty safe to bet I've lost strength even though the weight is still the same.
This all helps me tremendously during my first down and dirty (sub 10%)cut. Thanks.....
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
Very interesting. Thanks for your patience in answering the questions. I am not sure I believe that your results are typical based on what I know about this game and the evidence that exists. That said... Lyle McDonald wrote the UD2 program based somewhat roughly on the concepts that you allude to in your own program. His claims are that this method of training can somehow defy any sort of muscle loss in a high fat loss diet.
It is all pretty confusing to me actually how it is that these diets can actually do this and yet people like Layne Norton take 6 or more months to diet down for the stage. Still it is tempting to want to believe it and just get in on the "ript abz in 12 weeks" program.
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
The only people needing to mess around with recomping are those with several years worth of training behind them, and the foundation of muscle mass to show for it.
Otherwise there's little need.
Matt... I am re-reading your posts (just trying to grok as completely as my newb mind will allow your thoughts) and stumbled into this one again and again it made no sense to me....
Why would you not encourage a newbie to eat at or near maintenance and lift heavy like Lou advises for us newbies in New Rules of Lifting for Women?
It makes absolute sense to me now that I have been around this paradigm for 2 years and I have seen firsthand the absolute awesome results this gives even beginners over time in the logs on this forum. In fact I think it is one of the most brilliant "diet"/exercise books ever just for that reason. It is so simple and so effective. I am also certain that Alan recommends this "culking" strategy in his AARR (Nov edition) for everyone except bodybuilders who are working around show deadlines.
It is so much easier to just eat and workout and not worry about deficit or stuffing it in... and becuase it is not a drastic one way or the other, it is something that is very sustainable.
The only people this might not make sense for are those who are obese and need to just plain focus on fat loss for health's sake.
Why must all new people do cycles of cut and bulk in your mind in order to gain strength?
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
Matt... I am re-reading your posts (just trying to grok thoroughly as my newb mind will allow your thoughts) and stumbled into this one again and again it made no sense to me....
Why would you not encourage a newbie to eat at or near maintenance and lift heavy like Lou does in New Rules of Lifting for Women?
Because in my experience eating at/near maintenace doesn't cut it.
For beginner gains sure, anything will work as long as you're eating decently and lifting with progressive overload.
I'm talking about past the first say 3-6 months (assuming you've been on a continuous progressive-overload strategy, something like what's outlined in Starting Strength for noobs) once those easy gains stop.
If you're not eating in a definite surplus, you're not going to be gaining very much muscle.
Recomp strategies like UD2 work, but mainly because they're leaning you out - this already assumes an existing base of muscle mass. If you've been lifting 5-10+ years and have that muscle to work with, it's a perfect strategy.
If you diet without muscle to begin with, you're just going to end up skinny. Muscle doesn't appear from nothing.
Quote:
It makes absolute sense to me now that I have been around this paradigm for 2 years and I have seen firsthand the absolute awesome results this gives beginners even over time in the logs on this forum. The only people this might not make sense for are those who are obese and need to just plain focus on fat loss for health's sake.
Why must all new people do cycles of cut and bulk in your mind in order to gain strength?
I don't think most people need to do the abstract "bulk and cut" cycles like you see on the BB.com or T-Mag boards but they do need to make a concerted effort to eat in a surplus then eat in a deficit.
This would be where Lyle's earlier guidelines come into play. If you start at 10-12%, bulk to 15% or so and then diet back to 10-12%. If you do it that way you end up alternating brief cycles, and if you do it right you'll end up larger and leaner than where you started - ie you'll keep your muscle when you diet and minimize fat gains when you bulk.
Recomping is for people with years of experience and the muscle foundation to show for it.
IMO and IME, of course.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
.......
Recomp strategies like UD2 work, but mainly because they're leaning you out - this already assumes an existing base of muscle mass. If you've been lifting 5-10+ years and have that muscle to work with, it's a perfect strategy.
If you diet without muscle to begin with, you're just going to end up skinny. Muscle doesn't appear from nothing.
I don't think most people need to do the abstract "bulk and cut" cycles like you see on the BB.com or T-Mag boards but they do need to make a concerted effort to eat in a surplus then eat in a deficit.
This would be where Lyle's earlier guidelines come into play. If you start at 10-12%, bulk to 15% or so and then diet back to 10-12%. If you do it that way you end up alternating brief cycles, and if you do it right you'll end up larger and leaner than where you started - ie you'll keep your muscle when you diet and minimize fat gains when you bulk.
Recomping is for people with years of experience and the muscle foundation to show for it.
IMO and IME, of course.
This is why UD2 may be a poor choice for someone like me. I can diet just fine but do not have a lot of muscle so I always look poor at the bottom. (at least I think that is how it pertains to me....) I don't know if you know this, but UD2 is also for people who want to Bulk as well. It is just typically done for fat loss so the bulking program gets lost as a result.
I never advocate cut/bulk cycles like you typically see in T-Nation and BB.com. Most of those people are bro-tards. Of course if you eat significantly over maintainance you get fatter and significantly under you lose LBM.
I believe that my terminology for cut/bulk may be different than most. My understanding of cut/bulk is eating above for bulk and below for cut. (I think we all have this in common) BUT it doesn't have to be mean that you do it in stupid amounts. In this way you really don't just get fatter on a bulk. Sure, there is some fat gain but not really that much.
In fact the closer to the realistic gains/loss guidelines the better and I guess that is how this all fits WRT Lyle. I know he is not a fan of switching things up very quickly and regularly belittles people who do not stick to one plan for a longer period of time. It would take about 3-4 months for someone to gain 12-15% I would think which if they ate within realistic guidelines for LBM gain.
With respect to bulking for shorter terms, I am wondering what your opinion is on what I experienced during my first two bulks..... I noticed on both of my bulks that my greatest strength gains came at about the 4 month mark for me. Is this typical in a bulk program? If so don't you short circuit the best strength gains if you do it for too little of a time?
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
What I've been doing is pretty damn random, but shit just seems to work for me anyway.
I'm about 87kg now, but I'm leaner and stronger than i was at 86kg in January, which is leaner and stronger than I was at 82kg in January the year before that.
Since January I've been as low as 82.3kg depleted on comp day, and as high as 87kg now. So I was 86kg in January, and from then lost weight for a few months(barely had to cut for a comp in april) due to money problems and buying less food, then some time in June I got pissed off at that and decided to fuck it and just buy food, gained 3kg in 5 weeks up to 86.6kg, and then cut down to 82.3kg(i only cut for 6 days before each comp) for a comp in july, since then I put on weight and ended up at 87kg about 2 weeks ago without even trying to gain weight or eat more. I think I'm about there now but haven't weighed myself yet, not sure what's going on right now though. And I'm leaner now. Not much leaner mind you, but I'm a similar bodyweight with a bit more muscle and a bit less fat.
Anyway, my goal for the next 2-3 years until I move up a weight class is just to train at around 87-88kg, and 6 days out before 3 comps a year cut down to 82.5kg and compete, and then build back up to 87-88 in the weeks after the comp and do it all again, but getting slightly leaner each time, coming into teach competition with a bit more muscle than the last. I've pretty much just eating randomly whenever I feel like it(apart from that 5 weeks where I wanted to get my weight back up, and the time where I was trying to save money), and then dropping weight 6 days out from comps and I think it's been having that effect. But I'm wondering how I could improve it? I probably just need to be eating more when im not cutting for a comp, but still I need to make sure I don't get above 88kg or else the cut will be too large for 6 days.
I think just making sure I get enough calories and am above maintenance most of the time although not by much will be enough.
I'm getting down to comp weight for 20th sept to test out a new suit, will be dropping weight from the 14th-19th, and then using the suit in the morning of the 20th. After that I have 9 training weeks until a comp, where I guess I should make sure I eat enough to get to 87-88kg before I cut for the comp again.
So, if weight training is the stimulus that creates a condition where protein synthesis can occur, do we know how long that period of potential hypertrophy lasts after a workout?
In other words, do we know how long after a workout our bodies will use the extra calories for muscle gains? We hear about the "post workout anabolic window." But, for how long after a workout should we supply extra calories? 6 hours? 24 hours? 48 hours?
So, if weight training is the stimulus that creates a condition where protein synthesis can occur, do we know how long that period of potential hypertrophy lasts after a workout?
In other words, do we know how long after a workout our bodies will use the extra calories for muscle gains? We hear about the "post workout anabolic window." But, for how long after a workout should we supply extra calories? 6 hours? 24 hours? 48 hours?
24-48 hours, then things start to slowly return to normal (by 72 hours, and things are back to normal).*
You always have to be smart about it, keeping your primary goal and concerns in mind. 24-48 is a big window. By 72, it's done, but it's not fully on, then right back to normal like a switch was flipped off. It's a gradual taper back to the norm.
Assume you have an okay workout. Assume 24 hours is my peak window of opportunity. If it were me (and it usually is), I would concentrate on any extra food in the first 24 hours, tapering down after that. For me, the protein is the last macro to be lowered, post workout. By hour 48, I'm usually back to maint, but P is still high enough to be pretty sure I'm golden.
Remember that this may be the window to grow the most muscle, but if you overeat calories beyond what muscle building can do, you can add more fat than you like.
You have to keep in mind also that eating more won't necessarily just dump those calories into muscle either
There's pre-determined rate-limiting steps in that process, and if you eat more than the body wants to shunt into protein synthesis, it just goes to fat.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Remember that this may be the window to grow the most muscle, but if you overeat calories beyond what muscle building can do, you can add more fat than you like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerManDL
There's pre-determined rate-limiting steps in that process, and if you eat more than the body wants to shunt into protein synthesis, it just goes to fat.
I'm definitely aware of that. I figure that a couple hundred extra calories in a day is all that can be used....not hundreds of extra calories.
Well, I'm officially calling it quits on the fat loss diet. I'm going to start eating to establish what my maintenance calories are, and I'll start taking measurements and adjusting calories to meet my goals. I do want to gain a little bit of weight, just no more than 1.5 to 2 pounds per month. That should limit the amount of fat that I gain.
I'm just giving giving you crap. You can bulk for a week or two weeks until you really figure that mess out.
Yeah, thats a pretty big curve ball!
I won't go right to bulking. I intend to eat at maintenance for a few weeks. I want to test and try to find out where my actual maintenance calories are. Once, I feel that I know where that is, I'll probably add 200 calories and see what happens.
Hopefully by that time I'll know what is going to happen with the P90 stuff! Or it will have died, or passed!
Oi!
BTW, I've searched for threads on body recomposition and was surprised to not find very much. It doesn't seem like there have been many discussions about it. I've seen no references to studies. And I've only seen one or two people talk about thier body recomp successes, and those were in this thread! I don't know if I simply didn't find htem, or if there really hasn't been that much discussion.
I will say in my current experience of trying to get lean enough to even attempt what you all are discussing in this thread, the journey down to 12% is extremely draining. I've been very successful in going from a 21% 250 to a 16% 227. I've lost 23 lbs of fat in 8 weeks, but it's a drag! Chad, kfisher and Lostdog, I admire what you folks have already done. It takes a lot of dedication to even be discussing partitioning and things like that. The damn thing is that through this journey, we discover that we're not quite as muscular or lean as we originally thought (maybe this is just a man thing). Not only has my waist gone from 42" to 36", my chest has also lost 2" and my arms have lost 1". It's a very humiliating experience, but it's something that needs to be realized before attempting any sort of gaining program. Otherwise, you just get fat again.
Linear Mode
