Are there minimum time frames for cutting and bulking to be effective?

[WonderPug]

You're doing it wrong. You need to bulk for a long time as you're skinny fat.

Watch this:

[Mrpb]

You need to bulk for a long time as you're skinny fat.

Thanks for the suggestion. I've already seen that video and I understand it. However, it won't work for me because I will be spending lots of time on beaches in about 6 to 8 weeks time, wearing my swim shorts. I want my body fat to be about 12-14% by that time.

[WonderPug]

I will be spending lots of time on beaches in about 6 to 8 weeks time, wearing my swim shorts. I want my body fat to be about 12-14% by that time.

That's easy to do, as all you need to do is cut and you'll reach your goal of looking skinny and emaciated in time.

[Mrpb]

That's easy to do, as all you need to do is cut and you'll reach your goal of looking skinny and emaciated in time.

Well each to their own of course. In my opinion I looked fine last year with about 14% fat at 74kg. This year I have put on about 4kg of muscles.

[WonderPug]

If you're confortable being 6'2" and 163 pounds, then you'll be fine.

As long as you're happy with how you look, who cares what others think about your appearance.

[Mrpb]

Exactly. I was comfortable at 163 pounds and this year I'll probably be there weighing 172 pounds with more muscle and the same fat percentage.

Which brings me back to my original question: Are there minimum time frames for cutting and bulking to be effective?

Get2Liftin suggested a bulk for 6-8 weeks and then cut for 2. Can this be effective?

[WonderPug]

Which brings me back to my original question: Are there minimum time frames for cutting and bulking to be effective?

You're looking at it the wrong way.

Don't look to absolute timetables, rather, look to progress.

Bulk until you reach your goal level of muscle mass or you gain more fat than you're confortable with.

[Mabo19]

You're looking at it the wrong way.

Don't look to absolute timetables, rather, look to progress.

Bulk until you reach your goal level of muscle mass or you gain more fat than you're confortable with.

You're looking at it the wrong way.

Don't look to absolute timetables, rather, look to progress.

Bulk until you reach your goal level of muscle mass or you gain more fat than you're confortable with.

^^^^ Exactly this. We all have our own goals and make progress at our own pace, and so the X amount of weeks I cut and find best will not necessarily work for you. In fact, it just won't. You gotta try it yourself, gauge your progress, then go from there.

But you want a minimum, 1 week. Cut or bulk for at least 1 weeks time so you can see if your actually gaining or losing 1 lb or not (do 2 weeks for truer/more accurate numbers). Other than that, do whatever works man.

[Phrisko]

Repped OP for a good question that a few of the respondents didn't understand.

Some of us just are not happy until we get a solid answer for, "Why?"

[JackedPlusRich]

I'm of the opinion that fluctuations in water weight (which can easily account for 2 - 4 kgs when someone increases water intake, sodium intake and/or carb intake), combined with the fact that bodyfat percentage is very difficult to measure to effectively track over a weight fluxation of only 2 - 4kg would mean that you would basically have no idea whether you have put on any muscle in such a short time frame and inversely no real idea whether you have cut any fat in a small time frame. Do not forget that increased water weight will also act to reduce definition, which may fool you into thinking you are gaining fat, when you are not.

By going for longer (think 3+ months) bulks and cuts (again, I would say a minimum of 1 month, but more like 2-3 months), you will be able to tell by averaging out your bodyweight, appearance in the mirror and lift numbers over time. This will give you a much better indicator of whether what you are doing is actually working.

People end up spinning their wheels, because they think they have put on muscle, when really it was just mostly water, so they cut, then they perhaps don't have a big enough deficit so they lose basically no fat, then decide to "bulk" again. Basically just flipping back and forth and ending up in the same spot.

Where as if you bulk for 3 months, you will know for sure it is working because your lifts will be going up, your weight will be slowing increasing at a certain average rate over that time period and you will be losing definition slowly. Then you cut for 2 months and if successful your weights will likely either maintain or slowly go down and you will increase definition slowly as well.

Basically these short bulks and cuts aren't long enough time periods to determine if you've even got anywhere, exposing you to the risk of getting nowhere, which we call spinning your wheels.

[JackedPlusRich]

^^^ as a complimentary comment to the above post, the only way you will know whether a particular method will work is to try it out for 3 - 4 months, using objective markers of progress like weights lifted and appearance in the mirror during the same angle, lighting conditions and approximate hydration to determine success.

Experimentation is part of every successful fitness person's repertoire.

[Bejizzle]

I dont think your mini-bulk / cut idea is in any way a downside. Bulk for 6-8 weeks, cut for 2. If you keep it lean you should be able to gain around 2/3 pounds in the bulk and then in the 2 week cut loose around 2/3 pounds. I think that chasing a scale number would be a bad idea but if you stick to 6-8 bulk / 2 week cut, you will end up with good results. A lot of people who lean bulk take this approach.

-On the other side if you bulk for a long period of time you will also have to cut for a long time, this could end in a much greater strength loss.[ Your best bet is to try both ways and see what you like better.

Good point. For the record I agree with the OP as well and have pondered similar ideas. I think that this may be the best alternative for those looking to lean bulk or those who initially "spun their wheels" from recomp strategies.

[yololego]

3month bulk 1 month cut/ rinse repeat /???/profit

[chameleonism]

-On the other side if you bulk for a long period of time you will also have to cut for a long time, this could end in a much greater strength loss. Your best bet is to try both ways and see what you like better.

This statement only serves to solidify any hesitation that the OP (or any other person who wants bulk) has and is very misleading. A proper 6 month CLEAN/SLOW bulk aiming for .5lb/week will only result in a 13lb gain (excluding water/glycogen changes). The OPs stats indicate that he likely has a good chunk of beginner gains left so assuming a proper compound-based strength training routine with progressive overload, his fat gains will/should be negligible. Even if he gains muscle:fat at a 1:1 ratio (which he won't unless he is sleeping in the gym or just doing curls all day), he would only need to cut for 4-6 weeks to lose that excess fat off...

However, if you dirty bulk and shoot to gain 1-2lbs/week, you'll have to cut for a decent amount of time and based on this thread, I doubt that is gonna happen.

[RippednReady]

losing weight much easier than putting on hard earned muscle, its is generally reccomended to bulk for atleast 6 months (once you run a training program your lifts will just keep going up as you keep bulking. If you end your bulk early your gonna miss out on getting bigger and stronger lifts). If you bulk efficiently you would only put on mayby 5% of extra BF. The cutting phase should be as short as possible only when you feel your BF% is getting a little high.