Many people seem to begin their weight training, by reducing their calories
in a "cut" phase, followed by a period of a much high calorie period "bulk" phase. Obvously John did this and many other have also.

Clearly, this can be effective (in John's case extremely effective), but are there alternative approaches that would work just as well?

In John's case, From Jan 2003 to Jan 2005, his weight went from 215, all the way down to 160, and then back up to 213. During this period, he lost a large amount of weight and replaced it will a large amount of muscle.

But say that instead of drastically reducing his calories, he had instead just started eating really clean and working out hard. Over the 2 year period, could he have basically maintaned his weight, but slowly replacing the fat with muscles?

In John's case, From Jan 2003 to Jan 2005, his weight went from 215, all the way down to 160, and then back up to 213. During this period, he lost a large amount of weight and replaced it will a large amount of muscle.

But say that instead of drastically reducing his calories, he had instead just started eating really clean and working out hard. Over the 2 year period, could he have basically maintaned his weight, but slowly replacing the fat with muscles?

To burn fat, you must take in less calories then you expend. When you reduce calories, It is more difficult to gain muscle. It is easier to do so with calories above those you expend.

You can't literally replace fat with muscle. The fat cells are always there they just expand and contract. As I have pointed out before you can gain small amounts of muscle while cutting but not the large amount you talk about.

Try it, report back in two years, how it came out.

Many people seem to begin their weight training, by reducing their calories
in a "cut" phase, followed by a period of a much high calorie period "bulk" phase. Obvously John did this and many other have also.

I think the main reason for this is the fact that the majority of people decide to train/diet because they feel fat and their primary focus is on losing that fat. Once they begin achieving their goal, that focus then tends to shift towards sculping their bodies and may feel that a bulk is necessary.

can you be a fat muscler person?

if its true that the more muscle you build the more fat you burn then why cant one just bulk ... gaining big muscles and inturn because of this loose fat?

That is the dream, isn't it? The great myth so we don't have to get disciplined and watch our nutrition ... ahh ... just eat and lift. I know, I've hoped for that as well. Practical experience says otherwise. In my years of training, knowing trainers, and knowing people who have had remarkable transformations, I've met maybe 2 - 5 percent who can truly gain muscle and lose fat through the same cycle. The rest all lean down then bulk.

One MAJOR benefit of this is that you are more likely to gain muscle when you start out lean. In other words, all things being the same, if you gain 2 pounds at 8% body fat and if you gain 2 pounds at 18% body fat, you are more likely to gave gained closer to 2 pounds of muscle in the first case and closer to 2 pounds of fat in the latter case. This is something that I learned from John Berardi and he had some clinical trials he showed me (I know, science) so I adopted that philosophy and then it turns out every natural bodybuilder I've met who has won hardware at a show does that ... leaning down then slowly bulking.

I really think a lot of times we want to have this holy grail of gaining muscle and automatically having the fat fall off just because psychologically we don't want to have to manage our calories. I could be wrong, but it seems most of the time the people who say they are ready to bulk when they are not yet cut are the ones who are tired of the discipline they've been following for months trying to lose fat.

Jeremy

can you be a fat muscler person?

if its true that the more muscle you build the more fat you burn then why cant one just bulk ... gaining big muscles and inturn because of this loose fat?

You'll also lose some muscle when you cut - it's unavoidable.

Assuming your goal is to be cut at 8% BF, if you were at 12% and bulked until 18%, you would have to lose 10% of BF. But, if you were at 8% and bulked until 14%, you would only have to lose 6% BF. Less time spent cutting means less time losing the muscle you have.

Accordingly, if you minimize fat gain in your bulk, you'll lose less muscle when you cut. So, the best combination to preserve muscle is to cut down and then slowly bulk, as Jeremy's mentioned.

For me, since I'm just getting started, I'm going to start with creatine and protein supplements and will try to build up some more muscle initially.
Then perhaps I'll focus on cutting the fat down. At 6', 200lbs and 30% body fat, I know this is not the approach many others would take. I guess I've never felt especially fat, but I understand that I won't be truly fit until I get my weight down. I guess I'm what you'd call a fat ectomorph. Most of my body is relatively lean/toned, but over the years, I developed a nice beer gut.

This post has helped me heaps.
Thnx a bunch Jeremy!


That is the dream, isn't it? The great myth so we don't have to get disciplined and watch our nutrition ... ahh ... just eat and lift. I know, I've hoped for that as well. Practical experience says otherwise. In my years of training, knowing trainers, and knowing people who have had remarkable transformations, I've met maybe 2 - 5 percent who can truly gain muscle and lose fat through the same cycle. The rest all lean down then bulk.

One MAJOR benefit of this is that you are more likely to gain muscle when you start out lean. In other words, all things being the same, if you gain 2 pounds at 8% body fat and if you gain 2 pounds at 18% body fat, you are more likely to gave gained closer to 2 pounds of muscle in the first case and closer to 2 pounds of fat in the latter case. This is something that I learned from John Berardi and he had some clinical trials he showed me (I know, science) so I adopted that philosophy and then it turns out every natural bodybuilder I've met who has won hardware at a show does that ... leaning down then slowly bulking.

I really think a lot of times we want to have this holy grail of gaining muscle and automatically having the fat fall off just because psychologically we don't want to have to manage our calories. I could be wrong, but it seems most of the time the people who say they are ready to bulk when they are not yet cut are the ones who are tired of the discipline they've been following for months trying to lose fat.

Jeremy

Why cut then bulk?

Seems to be the thing to do these days :)

You need a calorie deficit to lose fat. You need a calorie surplus to gain muscle. Those two things are diametrically opposed to each other. Say you need 2800 calories to maintain your present weight, say 2300 calories to lose weight and 3300 calories to gain muscle. That's a 1000 calorie difference, two completely different diets.

If you use too big of a calorie deficit you'll lose muscle as well as fat. Use too big of a surplus and you'll gain fat as well as muscle. The world is full of very fat, muscular men and very fat, skinny men (look at Caruso on CSI). It's much better to do a carefully monitored program to lose weight and a different carefully monitored program to gain muscle. If you plow ahead with no specific goal in mind, odds are you'll end up doing neither, you'll just stay the same as you are. I did for decades.

can you be a fat muscler person?

Yes, but those folks play offensive line in the NFL.

I'll add another reason why it's smart to cut first, then bulk. Having a lot of extra, useless weight on your body can make lifting problematic.

It shoots your biomechanics to Hell. Your balance is probably way off, your posture is probably way off, your back is often constantly hurting, your knees are often under a lot of strain, and doing something like being able to stabilize and support, yet alone lift, your own body can be very hard.

You can still lift weights when you're obese, definitely. You should. It's important. However, the kinds of exercises that you want to be doing to really crank up a bulk, big compound exercises like squats and deadlifts and smaller compound exercises like pull-ups, dips, military presses, and even the old barbell bench can all be thrown off if you can't stabilize your body. And it's very hard to have good core stability and balance if you're constantly carrying around an extra 50, 60, 70, 100, 150 etc pounds of weight all day, every day.

You can do it (and I recommend that anybody cutting should also lift), but it's just so much easier to have an ambitious lifting program when you're slimmer. The really big guys, they generally have to take it pretty slow with the lifting until they get down to a certain point, I've found. They tend to get hurt, because they're already pushing their backs and joints very hard just getting around. I had really bad chronic back pain until I lost the weight.

So, I think your bulking progress would be significantly slower if you needed to lose weight but chose not to than it would be if you lost the weight first, then started bulking. You'd have more overall body control and more strength to dedicate to the intense lifting that will stimulate growth, rather than the walk up your stairs at home that will just inspire fatigue and knee pain.

Or enter World's Strongest Man competitions.

Yes, but those folks play offensive line in the NFL.