should i bulk or cut?

[peachmeow]

hello! i am new to these forums, a lot of helpful information out there. I am stuck in a rut and unsure if I should bulk or cut right now as it seems I am right in between both. For starters, I am 22, 5'7, and range from 138-141lb depending on the day (and carbs lol) oh and 23% bodyfat (bod pod test!). I have been lifting for 2-3 ish years (first year was very noob but learned a lot), and have been doing iifym for past year or so, but loosely. When I first started my fitness journey, as many, I did the stupid 1200 calorie cardio diet lost weight quickly (from 132 to 120) and gained even more back. Since then I have been yo-yoing between maintenance and cutting for past year and a half. Recently, past year or so I have been loosely maintaining around 1900-2100 calories or so, lifting 5x a week and cardio once or twice a week. I have always had a hard time gaining muscle, especially in my upper body and would love to have nice arms and shoulders. Since maintaining I have seen some progress in not only strength but some very slight definition, but not drastic. My lower body progress has always been easier for me.vCutting is hard for me because I don't like cardio and love to eat (who doesn't haha). Anyways, I am wondering if I should just suck it up and cut a bit more before bulking, or if I should just go for it since its winter time anyways. I just feel like I am a bit too pudgy to bulk yet but would love opinions. My goal body is lean, but muscular, maybe a little less muscular but as lean as Michelle Lewin!
Here are some photos, I appreciate the thoughts and opinions its hard for me to talk to people about this stuff because I only have one girlfriend who is into lifting.

[Partyrocking]

I'd probably cut first. I don't think you are pudgy, but Michelle Lewin is fairly small/lean, so I don't think you need to get any heavier to get a similar physique.

You don't *need* to do any cardio.

[peachmeow]

I'd probably cut first. I don't think you are pudgy, but Michelle Lewin is fairly small/lean, so I don't think you need to get any heavier to get a similar physique.

You don't *need* to do any cardio.

You think? Shes got nice legs especially! But thanks for the input
and yes, no need for cardio - but good for the heart so I try to fit it in, usually HIIT

[Partyrocking]

She's in very good shape, but she's only 120lbs. At you're height, your end goal would be closer to 130.

[mavd]

Am I the only person who thinks that Michelle Lewin has the WORST fake titties on the planet? Don't get me wrong.... I've nothing against augmentation. But hers just don't sit right. They look like they'd be as hard as her abs. She can afford better, no?

OP - Titties aside, Michelle has a lot more muscle than you. You will def need to bulk to get her shape. But if you think you're pudgie now you aren't going to like the results of bulking, so I suggest cutting to ~130 first.

[peachmeow]

Am I the only person who thinks that Michelle Lewin has the WORST fake titties on the planet? Don't get me wrong.... I've nothing against augmentation. But hers just don't sit right. They look like they'd be as hard as her abs. She can afford better, no?

OP - Titties aside, Michelle has a lot more muscle than you. You will def need to bulk to get her shape. But if you think you're pudgie now you aren't going to like the results of bulking, so I suggest cutting to ~130 first.

oh yeah her boobs look awful haha, but okay that sounds like a good idea! I def do want more muscle but I think cutting first is a good idea..even though its holiday season, I appreciate the input

[mavd]

She's in very good shape, but she's only 120lbs. At you're height, your end goal would be closer to 130.

Got bored, did math:

Michelle Lewin "claims" to be 125. I put her around 16% in most of her pics, so she's got ~105 lb lean mass at 5'4", and BMI of 21.

The OP's 5'7"/138 looks around 23% to me, putting her lean mass ~106. With that mass, she would need to cut to 126 to get 16%, which is a BMI of 19 and would be too thin to replicate Michelle's look.

To get to 16% and BMI=21, the OP needs to gain 7 pounds of muscle and lose 10 pounds of fat. This will probably take 2-3 bulk/cut cycles.

Of course, I would be remiss to say that 16% isn't really sustainable or healthy for the average woman. Michelle's livelihood depends on her figure and she spends way more time and money on training and food prep than the OP likely can dedicate.

[peachmeow]

makes sense! I mean I don't need to be THAT lean but I would love to be around 18% or so, I know it will probably take a year or a little over a year! I wish muscle building was easier haha

Got bored, did math:

Michelle Lewin "claims" to be 125. I put her around 16% in most of her pics, so she's got ~105 lb lean mass at 5'4", and BMI of 21.

The OP's 5'7"/138 looks around 23% to me, putting her lean mass ~106. With that mass, she would need to cut to 126 to get 16%, which is a BMI of 19 and would be too thin to replicate Michelle's look.

To get to 16% and BMI=21, the OP needs to gain 7 pounds of muscle and lose 10 pounds of fat. This will probably take 2-3 bulk/cut cycles.

Of course, I would be remiss to say that 16% isn't really sustainable or healthy for the average woman. Michelle's livelihood depends on her figure and she spends way more time and money on training and food prep than the OP likely can dedicate.

[kimm4]

Based on the pictures you look thin to me. You're also lacking in muscle and if it were me I would focus on building more mass to my base first before cutting down. I think adding a good 10-12 lbs would be a good start and you'll get to enjoy the holidays. It's completely realistic and you'd still be at a healthy weight for your height.

Michelle Lewin looks more muscular because she's 3" shorter. Adding more muscle to your frame is going to take some hard work so don't worry about ending up too muscular.

Good luck.

[ErikaGwen]

Same here we are similar in shape

[AddingPins]

I second kimm4. You look lovely but the overall look you are after is going to require you to grow a bit more. I wouldn't waste my time cutting just to turn back around and bulk, particularly when your bodyfat level is not even high currently. Get growing! After you have gained a bit more size then cutting down will be a bit easier anyways.

[Photoglady]

Bulk. I'm 5'7 and was lean at 138. Photos in my bodyspace. After getting lean with muscle to show it still wasn't enough, at least not for me. I went back for a bulk.

you are not holding much muscle at all. You need to put on some mass. I vote bulk

[StarksTwins]

Disclaimer, not a woman. Just bored

I think you should do mini-cycles. Bulk for 4 weeks at +300, cut at -600 for 2 weeks, and repeat. It's an effective way to bulk/cut without getting too pudgy/skinny

[AddingPins]

Disclaimer, not a woman. Just bored

I think you should do mini-cycles. Bulk for 4 weeks at +300, cut at -600 for 2 weeks, and repeat. It's an effective way to bulk/cut without getting too pudgy/skinny

That's a beautifully technical way to spin your wheels.

[StarksTwins]

That's a beautifully technical way to spin your wheels.

My twin brother and I have been doing it for 14 months and I like to think we made pretty good progress

https://imgur.com/a/3eFU2

[AddingPins]

My twin brother and I have been doing it for 14 months and I like to think we made pretty good progress

https://imgur.com/a/3eFU2

A natural female is going to have a tough time gaining significant muscle mass over several months of a surplus much less in 4 week bouts. Hypertrophy takes time and doesn't stop on the last week of your bulk. If you immediately drop to a deficit after a bulk you are probably short changing yourself of the last bit of progress that would have been made if ample calories were available. Now imagine limiting your growth phases to 4 weeks at a time and constantly dropping back into a deficit? Sure, maybe over a long, long period of time you might make changes but that's the same thing as recommending that she run a marathon facing backwards. Sure, she'll eventually make it to the finish line but after how much time? Don't over complicate things. Just put aside time to grow and then cut when you've gained a good amount.

[StarksTwins]

A natural female is going to have a tough time gaining significant muscle mass over several months of a surplus much less in 4 week bouts. Hypertrophy takes time and doesn't stop on the last week of your bulk. If you immediately drop to a deficit after a bulk you are probably short changing yourself of the last bit of progress that would have been made if ample calories were available. Now imagine limiting your growth phases to 4 weeks at a time and constantly dropping back into a deficit? Sure, maybe over a long, long period of time you might make changes but that's the same thing as recommending that she run a marathon facing backwards. Sure, she'll eventually make it to the finish line but after how much time? Don't over complicate things. Just put aside time to grow and then cut when you've gained a good amount.

I don't get your logic. Let's say you do 3 mini cycles (4 weeks of bulking followed by 2 weeks of cutting) vs 1 long cycle (12 weeks of bulking followed by 6 weeks of cutting). In 18 weeks, you've spent the same amount of time cutting as you were bulking, no?

In addition, longer times in a hypocaloric state lowers your BMR. Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2604959290083M

It makes sense to me to spend lower amounts of time in a caloric deficit and spread them out.

Lastly, you just asserted it's a great way to spin your wheels. Not to toot my own horn but I went from a 270 wilks and the before picture to a 418 wilks (elite total) and the after in just 15 months doing mini-cycles. Maybe I could have made faster progress, but if your goal is to stay relatively lean and build muscle, I think it's silly to assert that you'll make no progress. My twin brother and I are living proof that that is false.

[AddingPins]

I don't get your logic. Let's say you do 3 mini cycles (4 weeks of bulking followed by 2 weeks of cutting) vs 1 long cycle (12 weeks of bulking followed by 6 weeks of cutting). In 18 weeks, you've spent the same amount of time cutting as you were bulking, no?

In addition, longer times in a hypocaloric state lowers your BMR. Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2604959290083M

It makes sense to me to spend lower amounts of time in a caloric deficit and spread them out.

Lastly, you just asserted it's a great way to spin your wheels. Not to toot my own horn but I went from a 270 wilks and the before picture to a 418 wilks (elite total) and the after in just 15 months doing mini-cycles. Maybe I could have made faster progress, but if your goal is to stay relatively lean and build muscle, I think it's silly to assert that you'll make no progress. My twin brother and I are living proof that that is false.

Toot away. Your growth potential as a male is different than that of a female. You can't compare yourself to her.

If you keep breaking up your growth phase by dropping into a deficit you are not maximizing on the growth potential of the few weeks that you are letting yourself eat at a surplus. You are just making yourself spend more time working for the gains you could have gotten if you just ate at a surplus and stopped being neurotic about bodyfat gains.

Yes, dieting temporarily reduces your resting metabolic rate but it will return to baseline after eating at a maintenance or a surplus. Again, there is no need to overcomplicate things. Focus on one thing at a time.

[StarksTwins]

Toot away. Your growth potential as a male is different than that of a female. You can't compare yourself to her.

If you keep breaking up your growth phase by dropping into a deficit you are not maximizing on the growth potential of the few weeks that you are letting yourself eat at a surplus. You are just making yourself spend more time working for the gains you could have gotten if you just ate at a surplus and stopped being neurotic about bodyfat gains.

Yes, dieting temporarily reduces your resting metabolic rate but it will return to baseline after eating at a maintenance or a surplus. Again, there is no need to overcomplicate things. Focus on one thing at a time.

First off, thank you for the respectful exchange. It's rare to find a disagreement on the internet that doesn't resort to name-calling

In my mind here's how it goes

Short cycles:
Bulk 1 - gained 4 lbs, total increased by 30
Cut 1 - lost 4 lbs, total decreased by 10

Bulk 2 - gained 4 lbs, total increased by 30
Cut 2 - lost 4 lbs, total decreased by 10

Bulk 3 - gained 4 lbs, total increased by 30
Cut 3 - lost 4 lbs, total decreased by 10

Total: gained 60 lbs in total, same starting weight, thus lower body fat, total time = 18 weeks

vs

Long cycle
Bulk 1 - gained 12 lbs, total increased by 90
Cut 1 - lost 12 lbs, total decreased by 30
Total: gained 60 lbs in total, same starting weight, thus lower body fat, total time = 18 weeks

After 18 weeks, one should theoretically look the same. Even though your growth phases are interrupted by getting leaner, one would have spent the same amount of time in a caloric deficit anyways; just later and aggregated to one longer clump of a cut. Doing that longer aggregate of a cut, one growth phase halts anyways for the same amount of time.

And trust me, I hear what you're saying. We got that all the time before we tried experimenting with short cycles. But, in our minds theoretically, it should work. So we tested it and got results. I'm not claiming she would make the fastest progress. I'm not a woman, not am I other people, so I don't know how well that protocol will work for others. But it worked incredibly for us and the progress shows. If someone's skinny-fat, wants to do something that's more effective than eating at maintainence while getting body composition changes, mini-cycles is an option that can at least be considered if they don't know to go one way or the other

[AddingPins]

First off, thank you for the respectful exchange. It's rare to find a disagreement on the internet that doesn't resort to name-calling

In my mind here's how it goes

Short cycles:
Bulk 1 - gained 4 lbs, total increased by 30
Cut 1 - lost 4 lbs, total decreased by 10

Bulk 2 - gained 4 lbs, total increased by 30
Cut 2 - lost 4 lbs, total decreased by 10

Bulk 3 - gained 4 lbs, total increased by 30
Cut 3 - lost 4 lbs, total decreased by 10

Total: gained 60 lbs in total, same starting weight, thus lower body fat, total time = 18 weeks

vs

Long cycle
Bulk 1 - gained 12 lbs, total increased by 90
Cut 1 - lost 12 lbs, total decreased by 30
Total: gained 60 lbs in total, same starting weight, thus lower body fat, total time = 18 weeks

After 18 weeks, one should theoretically look the same. Even though your growth phases are interrupted by getting leaner, one would have spent the same amount of time in a caloric deficit anyways; just later and aggregated to one longer clump of a cut. Doing that longer aggregate of a cut, one growth phase halts anyways for the same amount of time.

And trust me, I hear what you're saying. We got that all the time before we tried experimenting with short cycles. But, in our minds theoretically, it should work. So we tested it and got results. I'm not claiming she would make the fastest progress. I'm not a woman, not am I other people, so I don't know how well that protocol will work for others. But it worked incredibly for us and the progress shows. If someone's skinny-fat, wants to do something that's more effective than eating at maintainence while getting body composition changes, mini-cycles is an option that can at least be considered if they don't know to go one way or the other

I would argue that your approach would be better suited to someone closer to their ultimate desired look. When you are 'skinny-fat' as you say, you have a lot of growing to do and I would not recommend taking the long road to gains, which for a natural female is already quite long as it is. Though your approach can yield results over time it's not optimal for someone in her situation.

I understand why on paper your approach would seem to work just as well except the fact that hypertrophy is not a fast process. My workout today and calories today won't result in gains today or even tomorrow. I'll have to keep up a surplus for days (or weeks?) after to help encourage the growth. If I keep giving myself inadequate food in the middle of my growth cycle (2 week cuts) I'm not reaping the benefits of my previous days of training in the growth phase because the food is no longer there to promote the growth. So you're not really getting the same amount of growth done in 12 weeks broken up that you would in 12 weeks constantly at a surplus. For a natural female needing to grow significant size, every single day counts.

[StackingPlates]

Hypertrophy is an actual increase in myofiber size, and it takes consistent time in an anabolic state - as soon as you sustain a catabolic state, many of these processes suppress or cease altogether. Bottom line, if you are a natural female looking to optimize the hypertrophy process over a given timeline, acutely manipulating anabolic/catabolic states essentially week-to-week is largely an OCD mindset for those that enjoy mental masturbation.

The hypertrophy process is mediated by many factors with exercise-induced hypertrophy primarily being caused by mechanical tension, muscle damage, and metabolic stress [1]. Adult muscle fibers hypertrophy by increasing protein synthesis and decreasing protein degradation with satellite cells activated in compensatory hypertrophy, and addition of new nuclei to growing fibers seems to be required for “extreme” hypertrophy [2]. Once activated by exercise or muscle damage, satellite cells proliferate and fuse with existing muscle fibers providing new nuclei for hypertrophy and repair. The growth of skeletal muscle mass depends on protein turnover and cell turnover [3].

Due to this slow rate at which muscle protein turnover produces increased myofibrillar content, actual changes in muscle mass over periods of less than three months are difficult to detect, even in tightly controlled trials [4]. For this reason actual markers of muscle protein turnover is often used to define anabolism despite not necessarily guaranteed to result in hypertrophy.

1. Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Oct;24(10):2857-72
2. Sandri M. Signaling in muscle atrophy and hypertrophy. Physiology (Bethesda). 2008 Jun;23:160-70.
3. Sartorelli V, Fulco M. Molecular and cellular determinants of skeletal muscle atrophy and hypertrophy. Sci STKE. 2004 Jul 27;2004(244):re11. Review
4. Rennie MJ, Wackerhage H, Spangenburg EE, Booth FW. Control of the size of the human muscle mass. Annu Rev Physiol. 2004;66:799-828. Review.

My twin brother and I have been doing it for 14 months and I like to think we made pretty good progress

It wasn't all that long ago that folks were claiming bloodletting cured diseases...do you see why using anecdotes to support one's hypothesis is weak?

And furthermore, please stop using anecdotes from a 19 year old hormonally active male competitive powerlifter to support why you are advising a beginner female to use your methodologies.

[StarksTwins]

Hypertrophy is an actual increase in myofiber size, and it takes consistent time in an anabolic state - as soon as you sustain a catabolic state, many of these processes suppress or cease altogether. Bottom line, if you are a natural female looking to optimize the hypertrophy process over a given timeline, acutely manipulating anabolic/catabolic states essentially week-to-week is largely an OCD mindset for those that enjoy mental masturbation.

The hypertrophy process is mediated by many factors with exercise-induced hypertrophy primarily being caused by mechanical tension, muscle damage, and metabolic stress [1]. Adult muscle fibers hypertrophy by increasing protein synthesis and decreasing protein degradation with satellite cells activated in compensatory hypertrophy, and addition of new nuclei to growing fibers seems to be required for “extreme” hypertrophy [2]. Once activated by exercise or muscle damage, satellite cells proliferate and fuse with existing muscle fibers providing new nuclei for hypertrophy and repair. The growth of skeletal muscle mass depends on protein turnover and cell turnover [3].

Due to this slow rate at which muscle protein turnover produces increased myofibrillar content, actual changes in muscle mass over periods of less than three months are difficult to detect, even in tightly controlled trials [4]. For this reason actual markers of muscle protein turnover is often used to define anabolism despite not necessarily guaranteed to result in hypertrophy.

1. Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Oct;24(10):2857-72
2. Sandri M. Signaling in muscle atrophy and hypertrophy. Physiology (Bethesda). 2008 Jun;23:160-70.
3. Sartorelli V, Fulco M. Molecular and cellular determinants of skeletal muscle atrophy and hypertrophy. Sci STKE. 2004 Jul 27;2004(244):re11. Review
4. Rennie MJ, Wackerhage H, Spangenburg EE, Booth FW. Control of the size of the human muscle mass. Annu Rev Physiol. 2004;66:799-828. Review.




It wasn't all that long ago that folks were claiming bloodletting cured diseases...do you see why using anecdotes to support one's hypothesis is weak?

And furthermore, please stop using anecdotes from a 19 year old hormonally active male competitive powerlifter to support why you are advising a beginner female to use your methodologies.

Don’t create a straw man. Week to week is completely different from one month of a sustained surplus followed by two weeks of a sustained deficit.

Nothing you quoted negated anything said. Of course hypertrophy drives muscle growth and nothing I said hinted the contrary.

And that’s the thing: I started trying mini-cycles before I was a competitive powerlifter. When I WAS a beginner. And it brought me to where I am now.

I honestly don’t know what your argument is. Are you claiming it’s not effective and it won’t work to build any appreciable muscle mass? Because anecedotal evidence proves that to be the contrary. If you’re claiming it won’t work because she’s a woman, I concede. I don’t know if it’ll work because I never done it as a woman. I was just offering advice on somebody who is in a similar position I was in last year that I did and got great results from. If someone’s asking how to build their bicep size and 21’s added 3 inches to yours, would you not advise them to the exercise? Or would you keep it to yourself because your anecdote doesn’t mean anything?

I would think the former. She doesn’t have to listen and can just cut for 8 weeks, bulk for 16 and repeat. To me, that sounds miserable. Hence the suggestion. It sounds absurd to not share your experiences simply because it’s not in a published research journal.