General question, and I apologize if it doesn't have an "easy" answer: As a rule of thumb, in a cut, what percent of the cut is generally fat and what percent is muscle? And is this reversed in a bulk?

For example, I believe I remember reading that in a cut, generally about 75% of the weight you lose is fat while 25% is muscle, at a minimum (e.g., if you're lifting weights and running; if you're not, then the % muscle loss can be greater). If this is true, is it also "true" that in a bulk, about 75% of the weight you gain is muscle while 25% is fat?

Perhaps people who've monitored their bodyfat during both can chime in here?

I don't think there can be a set ratio for fat to muscle gain/loss. A ton of variance is created by genetics, diet, and training. For instance, say you're bulking and gaining weight at a rate of .5 pounds a week. Now consider what would happen if you bumped calories up substantially and start gaining 2 pounds a week. Do you think that the same ratio of muscle to fat gain still applies? In my experience, I end up putting on more fat than muscle gaining weight that quickly.

Some people have even been known to gain muscle on a cut. Especially newbies who were untrained to begin with.

That's not easy, and it's probably not a lot of muscle, but it can happen.

So there's no rule.

generally when bulking, its assumed to be around a 1:1 ratio of gains of muscle to fat. when i went on my huge cut, i lost fat at about a 6:1 ratio to lbs of muscle.

generally when bulking, its assumed to be around a 1:1 ratio of gains of muscle to fat. when i went on my huge cut, i lost fat at about a 6:1 ratio to lbs of muscle.

Thanks!

I just did the calculations from John Stone's data posted on his main site. Besides the initial cut, he went through 3 maintenance cycles, 4 bulking, and 5 cutting. The results are:

CUT (lose): 56% fat, 44% muscle. ±8% on each. Range of 49-68% fat, 32-51% muscle.
BULK (gain): 50% fat, 50% muscle. ±20% on each. Range of 36-79% fat, 21-64% muscle.
MAINTENANCE (gain): Highly variable, 8-41% fat, 59-92% muscle.

His initial fat loss was 94% fat and 6% muscle.

Granted this is one person, but (other than the initial cut) it's interesting that during the cut there was almost the same amount of muscle lost as fat, and that it was generally the maintenances after the cut when he went to more muscle.

Anyone have their own numbers other than Matt?

Remember too that John adjusted his BF calculations last year as he found what he was doing a bit inaccurate. Probably find for watching a trend, but don't compare numbers from this year with last year for instance.