Title confusing but realise I can't change it now.
A better one would be "Do you lose more mass while cutting, the less mass you have?"
When people say "stop cutting you don't have the mass to support going any lower" do they mean from a purely aesthetic point of view?
If that person has only a little bit of mass aren't they still as likely to hold on to what they have if they get protein and lift as someone who has more? Sure they have less so risking losing any becomes more of a gamble as they have less to spare, but the odds of losing any don't change relative to the amount you have to begin with do they?
And therefore if someone still has fat on them (quite obviously) but is being told not to go lower because they lack enough mass to pull it off, presumably the argument can't be being made because of health risks because as as long as their body has a set of love handles it can't be about to suffer from malnutrition (presuming the cut is being done properly, slowly and with good nutrition involved.)
And presuming they were happy to brave the prospect of looking increasingly weedy and gaunt, and have family members express concern for their wellbeing, if they did fight their way to 12%, 10% regardless before beginning a bulk and retained their strength on their lifts (or the best they could) they would still benefit from a longer bulk like anyone else?
Or would the process of cutting to 12%, 10% while not having "the mass to support it" be detremental to the cut bulk cycle, the retention of mass and an effective slow bulk in a way I've not understood? One that stands apart from the purely aesthetic?
Thanks
|
-
06-26-2017, 11:15 PM #1
Is mass lost in cutting related to total mass you have?
-
06-27-2017, 02:02 AM #2
To an extent, the more weight you lose, the harder it is to lose weight. But its never impossible. If you consume few enough calories, you can lose weight until you die.
People are told they "don't have the mass to support a cut" when they hardly have any muscle, and dieting off any fat left on them would take absurdly low calories to the extent where its basically impossible for most. Usually people who have to be told this are obsessed with seeing every ab, or desperate to lose some daft small amount of fat they have, or afraid of suddenly getting fat.My band: www.thesunexplodes.com
Similar Threads
-
Is this whole 1 to 0.82g of protein for bulking idea overblown?
By SacredCASHcow in forum NutritionReplies: 27Last Post: 06-09-2013, 02:53 PM -
Im still amazed/confused by my ability to have less than 100g of PRO and come out ok
By Hyruliangoat in forum NutritionReplies: 112Last Post: 12-03-2012, 12:07 PM -
Losing weight then bulking up
By caloom1991 in forum Losing FatReplies: 3Last Post: 06-27-2012, 10:17 AM -
Outline of Dave Palumbo's Diet For Cutting
By Sick in forum NutritionReplies: 12627Last Post: 12-11-2009, 05:27 AM
Bookmarks