PDA

View Full Version : Cutting and bulking no required.


distantarray
08-23-2010, 01:17 AM
http://www.simplyshredded.com/dennis-gonzalez.html

I know I posted about him before, but a lot of new people are actively coming here so thought might as well.

For those who don't know cutting and bulking is a bodybuilding term, for bulking is when you take in excess calories to grow more muscle, and cutting is the time when you want to burn off the fat. Cycling is very effective, and some people think it's the only way to really grow, but it's not the case.

Many people just use bulking as an excuse to eat terribly, body builders will often eat a entire pizza, bucket of chicken, boxes of donuts or whatever they can get their hands on. It's quite a terrible sight imo.

Bodybuilders are the best at knowing what works and what doesn't when it comes to healthy fat loss. It's not uncommon for bodybuilders to burn 60+ pounds of fat while retaining most of their muscle mass within 12 week period. Although they do have an edge over normal people which allows them to do it. That is pure muscle mass. Since every pound of muscle requires 50 extra calories to maintain their diet is easier to manage while cutting. How much can a bodybuilder have? Not uncommon for bodybuilders to pack up 100 pounds of muscle or more, that's a whopping 5,000 extra calories + 2,000 recommended daily. So it's much more wiggle room as far as dieting goes.

SamuriSmurfX
08-23-2010, 03:33 AM
I was actually looking into this recently. Since nutrition seems to be my weak spot, while I eat all the right foods I don't know the frequency to put them in. Right now, I'm cutting, and I'm somewhat missing those extra calories.

distantarray
08-23-2010, 03:38 AM
I love to workout, and I hate to think that I can't keep my ideal body only for few months a year :p, but then it's not like I want to be that big, I only want maybe 5 more pounds of muscle and trim down a lil bit. I started back on serious circuit training again so we'll see how it goes. I don't watch my diet just try to eat healthy.

I like to post Dennis cause he's naturally a big guy, cause ectomorphs don't ever have a problem cutting they usually just stay skinny all year round. Although I like being a mesomorph (inbetween) cause I can still enjoy food and burn off extra calories just by working out more. I know some ectomorphs who LOVE running but if they run they'll have to eat so much more which gets expensive or else they won't have enough fuel to grow. Which is their aim.

PhDPepper
08-23-2010, 03:39 AM
Just wanted to say that the 50 cal per pound of muscle is just a misconception. The only muscles that do this are things like the heart muscle or stomach that pumps all the time, and i have not heard of people growing extra organs or a pound of heart. Bodybuilders have to work for their fat loss just as hard too :P

I think the actual number for skeletal muscles is only around 2 more calories to maintain then a lb of fat. Posted a link about it in the Myths thread a few months back but its probably lost in the pile of info now :\

distantarray
09-06-2010, 12:06 PM
Just wanted to say that the 50 cal per pound of muscle is just a misconception. The only muscles that do this are things like the heart muscle or stomach that pumps all the time, and i have not heard of people growing extra organs or a pound of heart. Bodybuilders have to work for their fat loss just as hard too :P

I think the actual number for skeletal muscles is only around 2 more calories to maintain then a lb of fat. Posted a link about it in the Myths thread a few months back but its probably lost in the pile of info now :\



http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/cals.htm This is probably the article you were talking about.

"The first comes from an 18-week study of 26 sedentary men published in the Journal of Applied Physiology [3]. During the first eight weeks, the men gained roughly 2.8 pounds of fat-free mass. The average daily metabolic rate increased by 263 calories per day.

Dividing the increase in resting metabolic rate (263 calories) by the increase in fat-free mass (2.8 pounds) gives us a figure of 94 calories per pound. However, we can't assume that this figure represents the metabolic rate of muscle.

Why not?

The first problem is the daily metabolic rate includes the energy cost of physical activity. We can't say for sure that the increase in calorie expenditure was because of the extra muscle alone."

With the effort to result in obtaining muscle which is aerobic activity of any kind, the body will burn, but with maintance of the muscle requires regular anabolic workouts as well, so it's safe to assume that to maintain the muscles with diet and exercise will burn a lot of calories as well, as for a exact number it's hard to say but bodybuilders have been basing this number for years and making good progress so I can't see it completely false either.

Bodybuilders have to work just as hard for fat loss as well but they do have more wiggle room to work with, with more sources of fuel to dip into if their diet isn't sufficent enough. Although they try to avoid that as much as possible cause that usually translates into the breakdown of muscles. -_-;

PhDPepper
09-08-2010, 03:05 AM
I'm so curious to find out what the real number is though. Wish they would test it out using retired body builders but, i guess it would cost too much and be a bit time consuming to do.

distantarray
09-08-2010, 01:29 PM
I'm so curious to find out what the real number is though. Wish they would test it out using retired body builders but, i guess it would cost too much and be a bit time consuming to do.

It would be nice if everything was understood and solid facts, but so far we can only go by past experiences and trial and error on most things. People have come a long way but still long ways to go in the science of things.