I agree except for this bit.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by triggey
you can go the longer road of trying to keep a low bodyfat percentage while increasing lean muscle mass, but it's faster with the classic bulk/cut method. even if you're not in ripped shape for a month or two, you'll have more lean muscle mass in the long run.
|
Not exactly. I've seen no real evidence that bulk/cut in the sense of 'ripping up' for a little bit each year, ends in more mass of a natural trainee. The fallacy is every body talks about it but very few of them ever really get "ripped" anyway unless they have great motivation to do so as in they are a natural pro. The manipulations you have to go through to get "ripped" are very intense and even somewhat tortuous. Most people mean "defined" and that is not the same thing.
The other thing is that the long method does not necessarily mean gaining from a LOW bf% but from a moderate one. A bodyfat percentage that facilitates mass gain while being able to control somewhat the bf at a moderate RANGE. This allows body recomp to take place over time while not having to go into periods of muscle loss for the sole purpose of looking good in a bathing suit for a couple months out of the year...espeically when most will fall short of that goal and "change goals" again. And that is all it is for most people if you ask me. An excuse to "change goals" when one thing isn't working.
Instead of admitting that this makes sense, of course, the bulk crowd now gathers around the "clean bulk". Which means?
Bulk/cut DEFINITELY is the way to go for a juiced athlete. But for the rest of us saying it is better falls into the category of my signature. I see just as many big and defined guys who don't bulk and cut in that manner.
I'm sure there are people who would do better with it but to say that is is always faster and more effective is just dogma. The whole clean bulk thing sort of proves it. Food is not steroids. You eat more than a cetain amount needed, even of protein, and you don't gain more lean mass than what your body's set point can manage. More protein and food does not equal more mass UNLESS you have artificially inflated protein building. So if you recognize this and control bf% via a "clean" bulk then the only thing left is to believe that the process of "cutting" somehow magically leads to more mass over the long term. Now I've heard people give "scientific" arguments of support this idea but I've never seen any real back up and it sounds ridiculous to me. But if you are willing not to always be in a hurry for the short term changes you can realize some long term changes that will stick much better.
Agree with Hrdgain on the squats. It's just about using as much muslce as possible. Squats represent a singularly intense effort but it's silly to set them apart from anything that is full body and intense enougth. Deadlfits should be the same in a way.