BEER Cutting Versus Fatloss
 

Just had a thought.

I don't know if the title of this gets the idea across though.

I was looking through the cutting sticky and toward the end of it comments and questions pertaining to the appropriateness of "cutting" and the difference between what cutting is and what is appropriate for an out of shape and more (or severely) overweight person. I've brought this up before and I think it is really important. We've never really had an in depth discussion of it. BUT it is not something I think is generally well understood. I see everyone and their mother having too much fat and talking about cutting. I noticed that nobody but me had any reaction to the question and yet I am NOT the most knowledgable here in this area.

I know a lot of this has been said all over the forum but it would be very difficult for people to find and get at. About the only thing we have is the cutting thread and, IMO, that ain't cutting it for everyone, as great as it is for cutting :)

So if people will get involved in this I think we can come up with the right questions as we go along. So I'll start with the most basic. According to your opinion or understanding:

1. What is cutting and what is fat loss? How do we know when to utilize one or the other.

(I know this may seem basic to many of you but it is not basic to someone knew to this and just beginning to research.)

Did you add the BEER part for more views and participation? :biglaugh:

I've got some thoughts on this... I'll get a response cooked up when I have a few more minutes.

Haha, I figured Boob Cutting might not come off very good.

Thanks, IK..I thought you might have some thoughts.

Just off the top of my head.

Right now I am trying to loose some fat. While in the past I have done a cutting diet. THe only difference that I can see is the types of food you would eat.

While on a cutting diet, the fat intake was next to zero. Meaning chicken and fish for main protein source. With rice,potatoes,oatmeal as the main source for carbs...with a shit load of vegtables. Calories were about 2500

For a fat loss. (there are a few different types) depending on how heavy (FAT) a person is. But for myself it is more of a balance of protein, fat, carbs. Carbs do change depending on if I'm working out or off, then every 7th day a refeed day is in effect. ie; 200 (training days) 100 non training days, 350 for a refeed day. Protein stays at 250g/day. Total calories very also, 2600, 2300, 3300.

I think is someone is very heavy (fat) they would benifit from a very low carb diet. Then there are TCD also... Can't say much about these.

IMO the main differences are your starting point, and your goals.

Cutting to me would mean you are already in shape, have a relatively low bodyfat level, and wish to get down to "competition" shape. Primary goals are to trim off bodyfat and keep your hard earned muscle mass. This process can be slow and frustrating as those two goals compete with each other, and getting down past 10% bf is not easy to begin with.

Fatloss on the other hand could denote many different situations. If your completely out of shape, fatloss could simply be walking for 20 minutes every other night, or a change in eating habits. On the other end of the spectrum, you could be in great shape and have a decent diet, but your just holding on to a few extra lbs, and you need to tweak your routine a bit to get the look you want.

Here's my take on the differences between the two:

FAT LOSS

People who are on or are in need of 'fat loss' are those who have little to no exercise background, have higher BF levels with little lean body mass, and need to strip down size before even attempting or worrying about increasing muscle.

*Diet*

There are many phases to go through when doing a fat loss diet. But overall, it mainly comes down to an individual needing to learn WHAT to eat, and also portion control. Most people that need a fat loss diet are people that have little nutritional knowledge, and generally have over eaten for a period of time. So it's more about 'smarter' choices with their food. Which after time, they can move into a more advanced calorie and macro tracking program to further their progress.

*Cardio*

Since individuals in need of fat loss programs tend to be the more sedentary type, cardio is a must. Generally it entails just getting out and doing SOMETHING on a regular basis. Burn some calories.

*Training*

Lifting for these programs is essentially an extra spur in the calorie burning process. Maintaining what muscle is already there is a plus, but it's not always a main point for the program. These people aren't always familiar with lifting, so they tend to start off with what the more advanced lifter would consider fluff work. Reps tend to fall in the mid to high range. It tends to be a familiarization with the gym, the movements, the form, all that fun stuff.



CUTTING

'Cutting' is for the individual that already has a decent muscle base, is more experienced in lifting, and has a body fat that is already lower by 'average' standards. These people are wanting to 'lean out' to show more definition in the muscle they've already built.

*Diet*

The cutting diet is much more precise. Calories and macros are tracked tightly. And the macro amounts are based more on preserving the muscle rather than just being in a caloric deficit.

(And I'm going to disagree with TALO on the 'no fat' approach to cutting. I've done both ways, with fats and without, and I feel that keeping some fats in there helps in a lot of ways. But, it IS based on the individual)

*Cardio*

Being that people who are cutting can't make drastic cuts in the caloric intake (due to the fact that they can only go so low with them, and there's the issue of preserving muscle still), cardio is the main way to add in a little extra calorie burning when needed. But this should still be kept to a minimum. Losing fat through 'cutting' should primarily be done through diet (again, with the muscle sparing... too much cardio compromises the muscle mass).

*Training*

Overall training volume is reduced slightly due to the caloric restriction (to avoid over training and compromising recovery time), but emphasis still remains on doing compound movements, and working in both strength and hypertrophy ranges (with the occasional fluff rep ranges depending on the program). Continuing to lift regularly while cutting is important because... it's muscle sparing! (noticing a trend here? :biglaugh:)

^^^ IK pretty much said what I was thinking.

Just as a side note. I think the term "cutting" is just getting too much use and it is losing it's real meaning, which Hrdgain and IK have both stated in their own way. Not only that but people new to lifting see the word Cutting and just start using it not knowing the difference, which just perpetuates itself.

Precisely.

There's a lot of confusion with the terminology used in this field, especially with people that are fairly new to all of this. A lot of newer people see the term 'cutting' and they think it simply means, 'cut the fat.'

Awesome. Thanks for the great answers.

That is precisely what I was thinking. But unfortunately I rarely see individuals who know better pointing out the difference so that the confusion doesn't arise. I have seen overweight guys come on this forum and be told to "cut". That kind of thing has to stop.

How many people are referred to the cutting sticky on a weekly basis? And how many of them is it appropriate for?

So this leads me to my next question.

Given the definition you guys gave of cutting as that done by someone already in shape, with low bf% who wants to lean out for a comp or other reason, why are people who "want to get big" continually advised to cut and bulk. Some people, of course will want to lean out for the beach, etc, but what I want to know is that why are people being given the message that perpetually gaining and 'cutting fat' is a way to get huge, especially for the natural bodybuilder. What is the value of this for getting big? Some science to this would be great.

I just read a natural bodybuilder and 'writer', in an article about cutting and bulking, explaining why everyone needed to cut and bulk to get huge. His premise being that without steroids this was the only way to go. This struck me as slightly ludicruous since is is precisely steroids that are needed to ramp up protein utilization beyond a certain set point for an individual. Now, I'm not questioning the need to cut when appropriate and the need to eat (for God's sake) but I want to know why this endless cycle of what seems like yo-yo dieting is continually advised.

To further understand my reasoning let me say that it obviously also goes into this misuse and overuse of the term 'cutting'. An individual told to cut and bulk believes that they need to get their bodyfat down to single digits as a prerequesite to then bulk and be able to gain..regardless of their esthetic goals at the time. Even though the guy giving the advice may not actually mean precisely this.

I am not saying you can avoid putting on fat. What I am saying is that people are almost being told that putting on fat is anabolic. That is what it comes down to. You can talk around it but that is what it is. If you tell someone that eating beyond a certain point has some sort of magical anabolic effect, then you are telling them that gaining fat has a magical anabolic effect.

If a person is at 8 percent bodyfat then gaining fat will be anabolic. But most people given this advice are at average to healthy bf% if not higher. I know most of us here alude to what I'm saying when giving individual advice but I wanted to put it in a dedicated thread.

Cutting: SLOW

Fat Loss: FAST

:D Simple as shit!

Scintillating :D

So an obese person who wants to remake their body can pretty much do the same thing as an in shape, muscular, low bf person who wants to cut, exept that the obese guy will lose fat faster than the cutter? That's not what you meant is it? :)

I'm still not done chewing the fat (that's my A level humour).

The undercurrent here is that there are many who believe that food works like steroids. The fact is, you measure the anabolic hormones of a "fat" person, it is lower, not higher. The more fat you put on the lesser your ability to deposit muscle, for all sorts of reason. Likewise, you get too thin the same thing happens. Most people are aware of the latter but stubbornly cling to the myth of the former.

I agree with what others have posted about terminology. hell, for year I thought I was "cutting", when infact i was simply dieting and doing cardio for fatloss. I've never been lean enough to cut in my life.

Obese people have a lot more to lose vs. someone already in great shape.. In my case, if I want to lose 20 lbs of fat and I'm only at 18%, I'm looking for about a pound a week to preserve muscle/strength. I also don't want to do any running, ect in favor of power walking or 10 minutes of HIIT on the bike or something. Obese people, in my opinion, if they have an atmosphere such as on that show, "the biggest loser", they lose A LOT of weight, FAST!

I don't think they possibly could do anything other than change their diet and move around throughout the day.. Most cannot walk. But going from 10,000 cals a day to 6,000 and moving around vs. sitting on the couch all day will lead to dramatic results whereas an athlete looking to lose weight will have a tougher time.

I agree. Course I probably should be using the word obese too much as I didn't mean "morbidly obese" necessarily. I am not necessarily talking about someone who can barely walk. There are many more mobile individuals who will still lose fat very quickly but that don't need to be doing much more that what IK and you alluded to.

What I trying to get at here, besides what I said above is the idea that someone with significant fat to burn should be occupied with putting on muscle. As IK said, and as I agree, maintaining would be a plus but the main point would be spurring on fat loss and for initial strength gains, movement, etc.

So let me point out that when we are talking about overweight individuals it is in regards to a general unfit population not in regards to "our" population. What is overweight to us can actuall be very healthy in general. And I think you need to start out with those general definitions before a later shift can be made to a new parameter.

But the message that most people get in the general "fitness media" is the John Basedow message that they will or should put on slabs of muscle and that will ramp up their metabolism. I.E. the muscle will burn the fat. This is bullshit. You will not put on so much muscle in a realistic timeframe that the muscle itself will have a big impact if your are "significantly overweight". It's the EPOC effect that will be most important, as I'm sure IK will agree. And this goes to people's expectations, so I don't think it is minor. It's the kind of thing that causes people to go in hog-wild doing everything under the sun and too much of it only to burn out a month later when their expectations aren't met and they are over-reaching.

Still waiting on responses to this http://www.bodybuilding.net/47191-9-post.html

BEER.

Well this has been a good read. I don't have much to add to the definitions mentioned above but I would like to add to what Eric said about people think fat being some magical anabolic...

I had this attitude when I tried my hand at bulking this fall. I didn't really pay any attention to my macros, I just kept my protein as hig has I could and ate any and every kind of carb out there. I *did* gain mass... quite a bit of it....about 17lbs in ~3months which I was quite proud of. However, now all of a sudden I want to try to get "cut" for the beach so of course I use the cutting diet. (I think it qualifies as cutting and not fat loss as I wasnt' *that* fat lol and I was in pretty good shape as far as my lifting went.

Now that I've been cutting since about Dec 10 I realize that I had put on alot of extra fat during my bulk. My mass gain was probably more like 10-12lbs muscle and the rest fat. So, I can see why people think the fat is the magic anabolic...if you eat like a maniac without paying attention to your macros you will gain mass faster...but its not all muscle.

Now that I've been through one of each cycle properly I realize that a good clean bulk is probably the best solution for me and most everyone. It reduces the amount of effort it will take to get down to "cut" if you want to for some reason and pretty much eliminates the need for the on-going cycling effect. If you're continually cycling, you will slow your overall growth.

So, if you are at a reasonable body fat % then bulk cleanly. It will payoff in the end. However, to get to that reasonable body fat level, some may have to use the "fat loss" as mentioned above.

Thats all I have to say. Feel free to argue any point I made. I'm not *that* experienced but I've tried a few different things and have seen some results.

IronWorker

Eric, in response to the bulking and cutting cycles. I believe that this is simply a bodybuilding carry over. It is nessisary for a competitive bodybuilder to keep a cyclical schedule simply because of shows and what not. I think that other people see this, and try to mirror it, even though its not optimal for those who dont need to keep that type of schedule.

You dont see powerlifters, or football players doing this, because they train functionally. It just happens that people look to bodybuilders because of the major focus with them is "the look". So they try to mimic them to get the same look.