What would happen if someone zig zagged their calories from over 500 to under 500 to over 500 to under 500 every two weeks?

For that matter, what if one did cycled every week?

What would the end result look like after say 3-4 months, assuming this individual was 10% bf at the beginning?

I think its a bad idea. Your body will be spinning in circles.

it's inefficient at best and really it might affect your lifts. There's no point to doing that.

That's called the "ABCDE" approach.

Anabolic burst of cycling diet and exercise.

It's an old theory, and honestly, it's whack and I know of no one who employs this method that was originally touted in 1997.

~SC~

What is the shortest amount of time you would reccomend for a bulk than cut?...2 months bulk, then cut till you are happy?...3 months, 1 month?

What would happen if someone zig zagged their calories from over 500 to under 500 to over 500 to under 500 every two weeks?

For that matter, what if one did cycled every week?

What would the end result look like after say 3-4 months, assuming this individual was 10% bf at the beginning?


What?...maintain???

That's called the "ABCDE" approach.

Anabolic burst of cycling diet and exercise.

It's an old theory, and honestly, it's whack and I know of no one who employs this method that was originally touted in 1997.

~SC~

One of the Bill Phillips "discoveries" (or was it "the next greatest big thing") from some Swedish doctor in his EAS Marketing Reader, I mean Supplement Review...total bust. Too short of bulking and cutting periods, recipe for getting fat and losing nothing. Requiring the body to shift 180 degrees every two weeks like some kind of retarded metabolic "grass drill" was a bad idea from the get-go. IMO, bulk or cut periods should be 6-8 weeks minimum, and transitions at the end from one to the other or tapering periods are better than "jumps"....just my 0.02 (actually 0.00)...

If you don't have a contest, I use "triggers" in my cuts and bulks - for cutting, it is so many lbs LBM lost or exceeding a ratio of fat loss to muscle loss for so many weeks in a row (right now, my trigger is LBM down 5 lbs or lose more muscle than fat 4 weeks in a row - hasn't happened yet (actually up 2-3 lbs LBM)). The third trigger is just whenever I'm happy with the BF%. For bulk, same thing - triggers are so many lbs fat gained, or exceeding a ratio of fat to muscle gain for so many weeks in a row. This is why I view it as so important to track body composition...

One of the Bill Phillips "discoveries" (or was it "the next greatest big thing") from some Swedish doctor in his EAS Marketing Reader, I mean Supplement Review...total bust. Too short of bulking and cutting periods, recipe for getting fat and losing nothing. Requiring the body to shift 180 degrees every two weeks like some kind of retarded metabolic "grass drill" was a bad idea from the get-go. IMO, bulk or cut periods should be 6-8 weeks minimum, and transitions at the end from one to the other or tapering periods are better than "jumps"....just my 0.02 (actually 0.00)...

If you don't have a contest, I use "triggers" in my cuts and bulks - for cutting, it is so many lbs LBM lost or exceeding a ratio of fat loss to muscle loss for so many weeks in a row (right now, my trigger is LBM down 5 lbs or lose more muscle than fat 4 weeks in a row - hasn't happened yet (actually up 2-3 lbs LBM)). The third trigger is just whenever I'm happy with the BF%. For bulk, same thing - triggers are so many lbs fat gained, or exceeding a ratio of fat to muscle gain for so many weeks in a row. This is why I view it as so important to track body composition...
Pics?

I dont think 50/50 and 2 weeks bulk/cut is a very good idéa. But other zigzag diets can be good, IMO. More like 80/20...

I think you should eat what your body needs every day. If you are training you should eat more(mostley more carbs). If you are resting eat less. That way you will zigzag your calories/carbs in a logical way that makes alot of sense if you think about it. Of couse if you use periodization and train more some weeks and mostley rest other weeks you will, intended or not, eat more some weeks if you use this logic. That will be a side-effect...

Now that you are working with me, this is a theory that you can take to the nearest window, open it all the way, and chuck the hell out of it and watch it fall like an anvil.

:lol:

~SC~

What is the shortest amount of time you would reccomend for a bulk than cut?...2 months bulk, then cut till you are happy?...3 months, 1 month?

Sorry to bump my question, but anyone have an opinion on it?

Would a 1 month bulk then cut still be too short...what about a 2 month bulk?

Sorry to bump my question, but anyone have an opinion on it?

Would a 1 month bulk then cut still be too short...what about a 2 month bulk?
cajunman offered his thoughts on this above.

Right now I'm on my first ever "true" bulk. I've been going at it for almost 5 weeks and plan to for 1 more week, which will total 6. Then I'll maintain for a week or so and begin cutting after that. In the future, I will definitely give myself a bit more time. I just didn't have it this year.

cajunman offered his thoughts on this above.

Right now I'm on my first ever "true" bulk. I've been going at it for almost 5 weeks and plan to for 1 more week, which will total 6. Then I'll maintain for a week or so and begin cutting after that. In the future, I will definitely give myself a bit more time. I just didn't have it this year.

Karate, why are you stopping at 6 weeks? Have you gained much fat on your bulk? I'm just starting to bulk as well and I am not setting a time for it to stop because as long as I'm gaining muscle and not much fat, why quit? I'm 6'1 176 and am hoping to bulk up to 190-195 but if gains are still being made and I don't feel like a fat a$$ I will keep going at least to 200. I'm not saying you are doing anything wrong by stopping at 6 weeks, just curious what your reasons are. I'm assuming you're planning a cut for summer or something like that.

KK....( now that we're derailing the thread ;) )

How much did you gain in 5 weeks....it couldn't have been much and initially it was probably a lot of water.

edit...hey cool, that was post 1000 :)

That's called the "ABCDE" approach.

Anabolic burst of cycling diet and exercise.

It's an old theory, and honestly, it's whack and I know of no one who employs this method that was originally touted in 1997.

~SC~

Dammit. All my ideas have already been done. Good thing though, I would have found out the hard way it sucked ass!