Reply
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Registered User peterm28's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2017
    Age: 32
    Posts: 82
    Rep Power: 24
    peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0)
    peterm28 is offline

    opinion? Where is tipping point where can't make newb gainz while cutting?

    My current understanding after light research (I found this link especially useful - also see our discussion here or Google others):

    If you're on a net net net Calorie deficit (this includes the extra base metabolism from your muscles - even if you didn't do anything all day - the extra metabolism that happens for days after working out as you build more muscle, as well as the Calories burned doing the workout themselves) -- then you will end up with less fat over time.

    This can happen even if you eat 2600 Calories. It's easy to eat 2600 Calories and end up with less fat over time, this is obvious to anyone who has worked out seriously and watched their diet. If they had a lot of muscle and worked out properly.

    Okay. Next: it is *also* obvious that in the beginning, while you lose fat, you can also make cheap newb muscle gainz. It is completely obvious that a 300 lb man who has sat at a computer all day and has pencil-thin muscles, really takes the elevator even in two-story shopping stores, and rides a scooter around, can start to work out and eat right, and the pounds will just melt off his fat ass because he's actually working out those pencil muscles, and if he's eating ENOUGH (maybe that's 2600 Calories!) then it's enough for him to gain muscle, if it includes enough nutrients especially protein. While he loses fat. Easy - when you're at 70% fat and a small poodle's worth of lean body weight.

    If someone steadily goes from 11% body fat to 10% body fat they will be weaker at the 10% - unless they did it by bulking first. (e.g. going from 11% body fat to 12% body fat on a bulk, then cutting to 10% using their bulkier body while keeping most of the extra lean body mass.)

    My question is: what % fat does this inability to make muscle gainz happen at? At 30% bodyfat you can be on 2-lbs-of-fat-per-week deficit and if you're actually putting 2800 Calories per day into your fat body at that 2-lbs-of-fat-per-week deficit including 180 grams of protein, if you're working out hard you WILL make more and more muscle in lbs of muscle as the fat melts off week after week.

    What percentage does this stop at? I hope you understand my question. For comparison I'm probably around 20% bodyfat. Thanks for any thoughts.
    Reply With Quote

  2. #2
    Registered User DCSpartan's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2010
    Age: 47
    Posts: 9,240
    Rep Power: 13646
    DCSpartan is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) DCSpartan is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) DCSpartan is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) DCSpartan is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) DCSpartan is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) DCSpartan is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) DCSpartan is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) DCSpartan is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) DCSpartan is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) DCSpartan is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) DCSpartan is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    DCSpartan is offline
    You dont understand what noob gains are.
    Reply With Quote

  3. #3
    Registered User zszoke's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2017
    Location: Bradford, Pennsylvania, United States
    Age: 39
    Posts: 101
    Rep Power: 103
    zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    zszoke is offline
    Originally Posted by peterm28 View Post
    My current understanding after light research (I found this link especially useful - also see our discussion here or Google others):

    If you're on a net net net Calorie deficit (this includes the extra base metabolism from your muscles - even if you didn't do anything all day - the extra metabolism that happens for days after working out as you build more muscle, as well as the Calories burned doing the workout themselves) -- then you will end up with less fat over time.

    This can happen even if you eat 2600 Calories. It's easy to eat 2600 Calories and end up with less fat over time, this is obvious to anyone who has worked out seriously and watched their diet. If they had a lot of muscle and worked out properly.

    Okay. Next: it is *also* obvious that in the beginning, while you lose fat, you can also make cheap newb muscle gainz. It is completely obvious that a 300 lb man who has sat at a computer all day and has pencil-thin muscles, really takes the elevator even in two-story shopping stores, and rides a scooter around, can start to work out and eat right, and the pounds will just melt off his fat ass because he's actually working out those pencil muscles, and if he's eating ENOUGH (maybe that's 2600 Calories!) then it's enough for him to gain muscle, if it includes enough nutrients especially protein. While he loses fat. Easy - when you're at 70% fat and a small poodle's worth of lean body weight.

    If someone steadily goes from 11% body fat to 10% body fat they will be weaker at the 10% - unless they did it by bulking first. (e.g. going from 11% body fat to 12% body fat on a bulk, then cutting to 10% using their bulkier body while keeping most of the extra lean body mass.)

    My question is: what % fat does this inability to make muscle gainz happen at? At 30% bodyfat you can be on 2-lbs-of-fat-per-week deficit and if you're actually putting 2800 Calories per day into your fat body at that 2-lbs-of-fat-per-week deficit including 180 grams of protein, if you're working out hard you WILL make more and more muscle in lbs of muscle as the fat melts off week after week.

    What percentage does this stop at? I hope you understand my question. For comparison I'm probably around 20% bodyfat. Thanks for any thoughts.
    From my understanding, noob gains are mostly from training your neuromuscular system to do a movement (i.e. bench press, squat.) You system gets used to the movement and you are quickly able to increase the weight. You didn't really add much (or any) muscle but you are able to lift more. For me, I'd say that lasted about 6 months. It might be different for everyone.
    Reply With Quote

  4. #4
    Registered User peterm28's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2017
    Age: 32
    Posts: 82
    Rep Power: 24
    peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0)
    peterm28 is offline
    Originally Posted by DCSpartan View Post
    You dont understand what noob gains are.
    Point taken, I will accept this. So substitute "not very much muscle". It's obviously WAY easier to build muscle when you have 140 lbs of lean body weight than if you have 180 lbs of lean body weight (40 lbs of muscle more). So I meant that if someone's lean body weight is only 140 (say) but they weigh 190 lbs, they can cut down on their body fat while increaseing from 140 to 145 to 150 lbs in lean body weight. They can do that while at a deficit - it's possible.

    But if they're at 190 lbs of lean body weight but they weigh 240 lbs - well, then if they cut they are not going to grow from 190 lbs to 195 lbs of lean body weight (by adding 5 lbs of muscle) while at the same time losing 10 lbs of fat. It really would have to be one or the other. That's because 190 lbs lean body weight is far from a newb - that is extremely muscular. It must have taken a really long time to build up to 190 lbs of muscle on the body!

    So as far as I understand if you're NOT packing a lot of muscle yet you can gain muscle while losing fat (at the same time), but if you're packing a lot of muscle you really can't do both at the same time. (As confirmed by the links I gave.)

    - So the question is: what is the body fat percentage where this starts being true? (That it's either build muscle or lose fat but not both at the very same time.) If I'm at 20% or so can I still do both at the same time? (cut and build muscle at the same time, without cut/bulk cycles).
    Last edited by peterm28; 02-13-2018 at 07:38 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  5. #5
    Registered User zszoke's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2017
    Location: Bradford, Pennsylvania, United States
    Age: 39
    Posts: 101
    Rep Power: 103
    zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    zszoke is offline
    Originally Posted by peterm28 View Post
    Point taken, I will accept this. So substitute "not very much muscle". It's obviously WAY easier to build muscle when you have 140 lbs of lean body weight than if you have 180 lbs of lean body weight (40 lbs of muscle more). So I meant that if someone's lean body weight is only 140 (say) but they weigh 190 lbs, they can cut down on their body fat while increaseing from 140 to 145 to 150 lbs in lean body weight. They can do that while at a deficit - it's possible.

    But if they're at 190 lbs of lean body weight but they weigh 240 lbs - well, then if they cut they are not going to grow from 190 lbs to 195 lbs of lean body weight (by adding 5 lbs of muscle) while at the same time losing 10 lbs of fat. It really would have to be one or the other. That's because 190 lbs lean body weight is far from a newb - that is extremely muscular. It must have taken a really long time to build up to 190 lbs of muscle on the body!

    So as far as I understand if you're NOT packing a lot of muscle yet you can gain muscle while losing fat (at the same time), but if you're packing a lot of muscle you really can't do both at the same time. (As confirmed by the links I gave.)

    - So the question is: what is the body fat percentage where this starts being true? (That it's either build muscle or lose fat but not both at the very same time.) If I'm at 20% or so can I still do both at the same time? (cut and build muscle at the same time, without cut/bulk cycles).
    I argued that it's possible to continue to gain muscle and lose fat forever in other discussions. Although I think I'm right (or close to it) you are going to have to face the fact that if you are in a caloric deficit then you are going to have issues putting on muscle. A lot of people advise cutting until you are at 13-15% body fat and then bulking until you hit 18-20% and then rinse and repeat. Some people may suggest different percentages. Hell, you can bulk at 30% and cut later if you want. But trying to do both after you've completed your novice lifting program is just futile. I don't know the exact best method but if you are trying to cut and bulk at the same time you are just going to be miserable because you won't see the results that you want. Look at the nutrition section on here. I'm no expert by any standard, but there are experts on here that you can learn from.
    Reply With Quote

  6. #6
    Registered User peterm28's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2017
    Age: 32
    Posts: 82
    Rep Power: 24
    peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) peterm28 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0)
    peterm28 is offline
    Originally Posted by zszoke View Post
    I argued that it's possible to continue to gain muscle and lose fat forever in other discussions. Although I think I'm right (or close to it) you are going to have to face the fact that if you are in a caloric deficit then you are going to have issues putting on muscle. A lot of people advise cutting until you are at 13-15% body fat and then bulking until you hit 18-20% and then rinse and repeat. Some people may suggest different percentages. Hell, you can bulk at 30% and cut later if you want. But trying to do both after you've completed your novice lifting program is just futile. I don't know the exact best method but if you are trying to cut and bulk at the same time you are just going to be miserable because you won't see the results that you want. Look at the nutrition section on here. I'm no expert by any standard, but there are experts on here that you can learn from.
    This was interesting and answered my question. Let me turn it around: should I cut at all if underneath the cut I don't have the physique I want? My calves, back, even biceps and triceps aren't going to win any prizes. So shouldn't I just be bulking and cut later - once my muscles are there? Even from the point of view of just aesthetics.
    Reply With Quote

  7. #7
    Registered User zszoke's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2017
    Location: Bradford, Pennsylvania, United States
    Age: 39
    Posts: 101
    Rep Power: 103
    zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50) zszoke will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    zszoke is offline
    Originally Posted by peterm28 View Post
    This was interesting and answered my question. Let me turn it around: should I cut at all if underneath the cut I don't have the physique I want? My calves, back, even biceps and triceps aren't going to win any prizes. So shouldn't I just be bulking and cut later - once my muscles are there? Even from the point of view of just aesthetics.
    It's really your preference. You can start bulking now at your 20% body fat but personally I wouldn't let it go much higher than 25% before switching to a cut. That's just my opinion though; you can do it however you want.
    Reply With Quote

  8. #8
    Registered User RK42's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2016
    Location: San Jose, California, United States
    Posts: 1,453
    Rep Power: 16924
    RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    RK42 is offline
    I think some of this might be quite individual. Partly you see impressive recomp examples from reliable sources (don't worry, I don't believe everything I see on the internet...). But it's also quite clear that many people find it difficult to make gains without being on a surplus once they reach a certain level.

    Sometimes people make it sound like everybody can just do the same thing, and get the same results. In reality, I don't believe that it works that way. Genetics play a big role in how your body responds to training. And this may just be another example where some people can make good gains with a recomp, while others are not as fortunate.

    I've seen claims that it gets much more difficult to make gains while not being on a surplus under about 15% body fat. But that sounds like a simplification. The training state clearly matters. And then there's the individual differences.
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts