Has anyone tested out going straight from cut to bulk?

[AD1985]

I was intending to but a wrist injury kept me away for a week right at the transition. Of course the idea is that you give your body a week to reset its hormones and not pile on the fat.

But for me, I've noticed that the studies seem to show that putting on mass is simpler by the year (as one example, in my early 20s you couldn't gain strength with more than 6 reps or mass with less than 8 etc).

Anyone try out skipping a week or 2 of maintenance transitions?

[induced_drag]

I was intending to but a wrist injury kept me away for a week right at the transition. Of course the idea is that you give your body a week to reset its hormones and not pile on the fat.

But for me, I've noticed that the studies seem to show that putting on mass is simpler by the year (as one example, in my early 20s you couldn't gain strength with more than 6 reps or mass with less than 8 etc).

Anyone try out skipping a week or 2 of maintenance transitions?

Never did maintenance transitions. I always took advantage of coming off a deficit and actually ate 200-300 over what my eventual surplus. Eg, I would go right to 5-600 over and then drop to a 250 cal surplus. I would only do for about 7-10 days. I always felt I could take advantage of the extra cals and mentally it was good as well. My workouts were always the best those few weeks.

[mtpockets]

I was intending to but a wrist injury kept me away for a week right at the transition. Of course the idea is that you give your body a week to reset its hormones and not pile on the fat.

But for me, I've noticed that the studies seem to show that putting on mass is simpler by the year (as one example, in my early 20s you couldn't gain strength with more than 6 reps or mass with less than 8 etc).

Anyone try out skipping a week or 2 of maintenance transitions?

After starving my ass for a period of time, I am not transitioning into more calories, gimme, gimmie, gimmie.


I gave up reading studies and overthinking this sport a long time ago.

[drudixon]

Never did maintenance transitions. I always took advantage of coming off a deficit and actually ate 200-300 over what my eventual surplus. Eg, I would go right to 5-600 over and then drop to a 250 cal surplus. I would only do for about 7-10 days. I always felt I could take advantage of the extra cals and mentally it was good as well. My workouts were always the best those few weeks.

This for me

[kyoun1e]

Not a good idea.

Need to normalize hormones a bit. Hit maintenance for a week or 2.

If you go right into bulk you will route more excess nutrients to fat storage than you'd like.

[Jtbny]

If you go right into bulk you will route more excess nutrients to fat storage than you'd like.

Why would that happen?

[induced_drag]

Not a good idea.

Need to normalize hormones a bit. Hit maintenance for a week or 2.

If you go right into bulk you will route more excess nutrients to fat storage than you'd like.

Really?......Hmmmm. Sounds like a bunch of broscience. If anything, nutrient partitioning will be most favorable coming off a deficit.

I literally spent years without ever being same weight two weeks in a row. Always on a 250 Cal surplus or a 500-700 deficit. I tracked many metrics, cals, strength, size of body parts, skinfolds, waist dia....etc. My experience was actually the opposite. After doing this long enough, you can begin to tell over a few weeks when nutrient partitioning goes south. I could tell even before calipers would show higher sub-q numbers.

Share your experiences since they seem to be so different.

[kimm4]

Yes I've done it many times with no problems.

[kyoun1e]

what a load of nonsense....
You eat excess calories you get fat, its that simple.

This guy is pretty damn smart:

https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fa...-gaining.html/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21677272

[kimm4]

If you go right into bulk you will route more excess nutrients to fat storage than you'd like.

Sure if you go too aggressive in your surplus which can happen at anytime. That in itself is an easy fix.

[mtpockets]

I think it's better to put the studies down and pick the weights up, to me it seems to minor to be concerned about.

[drudixon]

This guy is pretty damn smart:

https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fa...-gaining.html/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21677272

Sure, in untrained dieters going to surplus while continuing to be untrained....

Sure glad there was a study for that...

Yes, your body will be sensitive since you've artificially depressed your rmr. Longer the diet, more depressed rmr will be. This isn't new news. Hell, we had one pro natural bber with actual metabolic damage. Everyone gets that.

The part you're missing, in trained folks, like yourself, you'll restock your liver to the tune of about two lbs of glycogen (it holds 4 total), and you'll restock your muscles for another 2 to three lbs of glycogen. So thats roughly 2lbs of unburnt glucose. It takes a minute to add that back. A daily surplus of 5 to 600 calories is by no means excessive since a large portion is restocking the shelves so to speak. Other things replenished after a cut are hormones, since fat was used for energy. Likewise fat and protein are used in greater supply for ligaments, skin, tendons and such. By having such a small or no surplus post diet, you're just delaying the point at which your body wants to make muscle, instead of simply recover.

[induced_drag]

This guy is pretty damn smart:

Lyle is also talking about bodybuilders coming out of a contest prep. Many used to just gorge back on food after 16+ week of HARD dieting. You have to understand for whom he is writing the advice. There are some things that actually come into play when you are trying to drop fat to essential bf levels. But just dieting down to 10-12% is not nearly as severe on the body.

Same with discussing carb timing. For 99.9% of people it does not matter. But yes, there is an impact when you get lean enough and it does become noticeable.


If the op said: "I am a competitive bodybuilder and just finished my third show after 16 weeks of hard dieting from 205 down to 168 and I want to transition into a surplus, what would be the best way?". I might pass along Lyles advice. Otherwise, to the average person, it does not apply.

If you are going to give out advice, at least understand what you trying to advise people on and not just cut and paste links to support your "advice". Like others have said.....you are WAY off.

[kyoun1e]

If you are going to give out advice, at least understand what you trying to advise people on and not just cut and paste links to support your "advice". Like others have said.....you are WAY off.

Please Mr. Know It All.

My advice is based on personal experience and a thorough understanding of Lyle's stance. Those two links are just the tip of the iceberg on the topic.

If you are over 35 years old your hormones are not acting as they did when you were 20. It is easier to gain fat now. The deck is stacked against you. Nutrient partitioning in general is poorer unless you are of superior genetics.

I am closing in on 50, have three decades of experience, manage surpluses down to the +/- 1- calories level, and have experienced the risk of fat gain despite my best efforts. I'd also say I'm of average genetics.

Sure, you can manage your surplus to minimize fat gain, but guess what? The "average" lifter that you focus on doesn't do this well!

Listen, I'm not saying you're going to gain back all you have lost but there is risk here. IMHO, based on my experience and the science I've read you can minimize this risk by hitting one week of maintenance to normalize and transition to bulk. Lyle recommends two.

[dragman72]

Only negative from cutting straight to a bulk IMHO is this:
Weight on the scale goes way up and body usually feels uncomfortable for a few days due to water sodium etc. say I get done cutting at 200 I will usually have a cheat day then go right into my bulk phase (300 calorie surplus) in the first 2-3 days I "gain 10-12lbs" then it becomes normalized and I gain maybe 1 lbs a week after that. Just like cutting. I start and lose 7-10 the first week then maybe 1 or 2 each week after that. At least that's my body glycogen storage and the amount of water we hold shows on the scale but it's not real weight during the transition. I look better after a week on surplus than I do after a few weeks of dieting every time that's why I usually eat a surplus 2 months of the year and cut the other 10.

[mtpockets]

Please Mr. Know It All.

My advice is based on personal experience and a thorough understanding of Lyle's stance. Those two links are just the tip of the iceberg on the topic.

If you are over 35 years old your hormones are not acting as they did when you were 20. It is easier to gain fat now. The deck is stacked against you. Nutrient partitioning in general is poorer unless you are of superior genetics.

I am closing in on 50, have three decades of experience, manage surpluses down to the +/- 1- calories level, and have experienced the risk of fat gain despite my best efforts. I'd also say I'm of average genetics.

Sure, you can manage your surplus to minimize fat gain, but guess what? The "average" lifter that you focus on doesn't do this well!

Listen, I'm not saying you're going to gain back all you have lost but there is risk here. IMHO, based on my experience and the science I've read you can minimize this risk by hitting one week of maintenance to normalize and transition to bulk. Lyle recommends two.

You're 3 decades of of experience certainly doesn't show in your avi compared to Induced Drag's, just saying. I have read numerous post by ID both on nutrition and training, he knows his $hit, like they say, a picture is worth a 1000 words.

Good luck with your goals in 2018

[Plateauplower]

Please Mr. Know It All.

My advice is based on personal experience and a thorough understanding of Lyle's stance. Those two links are just the tip of the iceberg on the topic.

If you are over 35 years old your hormones are not acting as they did when you were 20. It is easier to gain fat now. The deck is stacked against you. Nutrient partitioning in general is poorer unless you are of superior genetics.

I am closing in on 50, have three decades of experience, manage surpluses down to the +/- 1- calories leve l, and have experienced the risk of fat gain despite my best efforts. I'd also say I'm of average genetics.

Sure, you can manage your surplus to minimize fat gain, but guess what? The "average" lifter that you focus on doesn't do this well!

Listen, I'm not saying you're going to gain back all you have lost but there is risk here. IMHO, based on my experience and the science I've read you can minimize this risk by hitting one week of maintenance to normalize and transition to bulk. Lyle recommends two.

You sir, are retarded. If you think you can track nutrition that closely I have some bad news for you....

With all of your experience you should put up a current Avi, surely that is not the result of 30 years of consistent training.....If it is, I've got more bad news.

[drudixon]

This would be a good thread for Alan aragon to serve as a tie breaker.....

[induced_drag]

First, I dont always judge a book by the cover....BUT the cover can add a lot to the credibility. As for the OP....who knows maybe he was in good shape at one time?.... BUT any credibility was lost at this:

three decades of experience, manage surpluses down to the +/- 1- calories level,

It is hard....people get hung up on the super small, and miss the "big picture". While I am sure you can find studies that do demonstrate many things, you have to remember the difference between statistical significance and real word "significant". (not even addressing poor study design which can also be a huge factor)

@Dru. I am a big fan of Alan and I have often expressed my sincere gratitude towards his knowledge and insight. He almost single handed saved me from a bodybuilding "hardcorez" chicken and rice cake mentality. Thinking back to Kane's (Timberwolf) posts about IIFYM etc. It blew my mind. Alan made many of those things much more clear. Heck...been a follower for the last 7 years, and have practiced, and LEARNED that one can really over complicate things. No sense in measuring football fields with micrometers. Yards work just fine.

[AD1985]

It's a darn shame things turned personal. I wish we could just ban that stuff from the forum.

Anyways, seems the majority here feel that sticking to the numbers will be fine enough. But there is the hormone argument, and it too is accepted by many BBers (who aren't in this thread except one) as a factor significant enough for non-pros to want to accommodate.

Honestly, I don't know what to think. I'll probably do what I want which is to stop the transition weeks. I will say as a counterpoint, that I can feel my leptin response kicking in hard by day 2. "FEED MEEEEE." So if the hormonal response is that strong at the start of the deficit, why couldn't it also be strong at the end? Could the hormones take what should be a maintenance or slight surplus day and shovel it into the fat stores before they settle down? Just pondering out loud.

[induced_drag]

It's a darn shame things turned personal. I wish we could just ban that stuff from the forum.

Anyways, seems the majority here feel that sticking to the numbers will be fine enough. But there is the hormone argument, and it too is accepted by many BBers (who aren't in this thread except one) as a factor significant enough for non-pros to want to accommodate.

Honestly, I don't know what to think. I'll probably do what I want which is to stop the transition weeks. I will say as a counterpoint, that I can feel my leptin response kicking in hard by day 2. "FEED MEEEEE." So if the hormonal response is that strong at the start of the deficit, why couldn't it also be strong at the end? Could the hormones take what should be a maintenance or slight surplus day and shovel it into the fat stores before they settle down? Just pondering out loud.

OP... there is a BIG difference between the levels a bodybuilder cuts to and the avg joe wanting abs. If you are currently in the 5%bf range and are worried an excess spillover of initial cals will add an extra mm to your abdominal skinfold (which is the hardest for most men to shed), then by all means. But if your midsection skinfold is not 4mm range, there is not a lab or instrument in the world that could measure any difference in the two methods.

I for one actually believe bringing cals up initially is an advantage. It very quickly fills you back out without almost any downside. Mentally, it is some of the best feeling you will ever have in the gym.

Take it or leave it....but if you go around following "bodybuilders" advice, you will be adopting MANY things that are mostly pointless. I'm not a bodybuilder and this is how badly eating a small surplus hurts me. (pic was 2 weeks out of a summer cut couple years ago). Yes.....extra cals and all. You can actually see the thicker skin from holding a little more water from all the carbs vs the first pic which was a week earlier.









For reference, this was end of my last ever "bulk" a few years back right above 230.



And for reference...this is a current "offseason" pic, sloppy eating and all. I no longer "bulk and cut". Just not productive for me anymore. But it is the best way in my opinion for guys with progress and growth left to improve. I always did 250 cal surpluses for 4-5 months and then 500-750 deficits for 10-12 week. Rinse and repeat. Did it for almost 5 years straight. But no longer productive for me. Usually stay around 205-6. A few days of cutting carbs and I am under 200.

[drudixon]

It's a darn shame things turned personal. I wish we could just ban that stuff from the forum.

Anyways, seems the majority here feel that sticking to the numbers will be fine enough. But there is the hormone argument, and it too is accepted by many BBers (who aren't in this thread except one) as a factor significant enough for non-pros to want to accommodate.

Honestly, I don't know what to think. I'll probably do what I want which is to stop the transition weeks. I will say as a counterpoint, that I can feel my leptin response kicking in hard by day 2. "FEED MEEEEE." So if the hormonal response is that strong at the start of the deficit, why couldn't it also be strong at the end? Could the hormones take what should be a maintenance or slight surplus day and shovel it into the fat stores before they settle down? Just pondering out loud.

Simply dieting tanks your hormones. That's why your resting metabolic rate isn't commensurate with height, lean body mass, age norms. It takes time to remake hormones, then it takes more time for those hormones to take effect. Longer the diet, the longer it takes to find equilibrium. This is the reason many bodybuilders Refeed frequently during contest prep, it's to keep hormones from tanking as well as maintaining glycogen levels for the gym. This is why I advocate a small surplus right away, it's to find equilibrium as fast as possible, without tying on a ton of fat.

[Plateauplower]

You're 3 decades of of experience certainly doesn't show in your avi compared to Induced Drag's, just saying. I have read numerous post by ID both on nutrition and training, he knows his $hit, like they say, a picture is worth a 1000 words.

Good luck with your goals in 2018

ID should post a picture.....


Oh wait, never mind

[wesleysh21]

I knew a guy that went straight from a cut into a bulk once.

[induced_drag]

ID should post a picture.....


Oh wait, never mind

Hey....2017 was a slow year for me. Hopefully this year I can make some progress worth posting! And not reverse progress!!!!

Good to see you are still at it!