At what % fat do you cut

Bigger Stronger Leaner
41

Ah, TN’s classic topic again. The problem with the topic is that there seems to be little good evidence on the efficiency of the different approaches. The evidence the typical “permabulkers” bring to the discussion are almost always of very low quality - typically just their testimonials of their own progress or of their buddies/uncle. And we know that especially those people are often terrible at making objective assessments with regard to body compositions.

However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the prolonged pushing of the bw is less efficient in the end for whatever goal (that needs to be agreed upon of course - makes big differences in the analysis). Saying what competitive natties do is also not necessarily a convincing evidence against the permabulker-hypothesis.

Anyway, we would need some proper studies comparing different approaches with proper body composition testing over the long term etc. Won’t happen, so I don’t know how to settle the issue.

42

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Really?

Johnny Jackson.[/quote]

That’s an awesome picture.

I’m definitely no Johnny Jackson. Just sayin’ what works for me. However, in full disclosure, I have never had a bulk where I got that huge so I can’t say it doesn’t work.

I’m just personally scared to try it. : )

I don’t mind getting a little soft, but I have my limits.

43

Tim, did you compete this past year at the Pittsburgh show in Murrysville? I believe last year you competed and did quite well. Or are you working on putting more muscle at this time and in off-season mode?

44

I would not bulk if I was over 13-14% bodyfat, you just get way too heavy if you do.

45

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Tim, did you compete this past year at the Pittsburgh show in Murrysville? I believe last year you competed and did quite well. Or are you working on putting more muscle at this time and in off-season mode?[/quote]

I competed in 2012 and took first Novice Tall and second Open Tall, only losing to the gentleman who won the overall.

I took off this year to try and gain more mass. Funny, I actually did a mini-cut which culminated on the same weekend of the show and I could have stepped on stage and done well (based on a video of the 2013 competitors).

I want to do next year’s show, but finances will determine whether I do or not since competing is friggin’ expensive.

46

[quote]timmcbride00 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Really?

Johnny Jackson.[/quote]

That’s an awesome picture.

I’m definitely no Johnny Jackson. Just sayin’ what works for me. However, in full disclosure, I have never had a bulk where I got that huge so I can’t say it doesn’t work.

I’m just personally scared to try it. : )

I don’t mind getting a little soft, but I have my limits.[/quote]

Great response…because it would seem that most of the people that do speak out against it have never come close to being that size either.

I have my limits too, but there is no way Johhny is “too fat” in that picture. He was working on all out strength and size…exactly what many here should be if their goal is to be really big in the end.

47

[quote]LaverneIsleib wrote:
I would not bulk if I was over 13-14% bodyfat, you just get way too heavy if you do.[/quote]

Wouldn’t that depend on your genetics and effort?

Youtube gen has screwed up these terms so much they don’t even mean what they used to.

Bulking up used to just mean working on all out size and strength.

It NEVER meant not caring at all about how much fat you gain.

It is about the muscle, not the body fat.

48

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]timmcbride00 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Really?

Johnny Jackson.[/quote]

That’s an awesome picture.

I’m definitely no Johnny Jackson. Just sayin’ what works for me. However, in full disclosure, I have never had a bulk where I got that huge so I can’t say it doesn’t work.

I’m just personally scared to try it. : )

I don’t mind getting a little soft, but I have my limits.[/quote]

Great response…because it would seem that most of the people that do speak out against it have never come close to being that size either.

I have my limits too, but there is no way Johhny is “too fat” in that picture. He was working on all out strength and size…exactly what many here should be if their goal is to be really big in the end.[/quote]

Surely you can agree cutting for a natural is completely different than cutting with copious PED use. So using johnny jackson might be a valid point on bulking up that fat for guys using, but it’s a completely different game for natty’s.

49

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]timmcbride00 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Really?

Johnny Jackson.[/quote]

That’s an awesome picture.

I’m definitely no Johnny Jackson. Just sayin’ what works for me. However, in full disclosure, I have never had a bulk where I got that huge so I can’t say it doesn’t work.

I’m just personally scared to try it. : )

I don’t mind getting a little soft, but I have my limits.[/quote]

Great response…because it would seem that most of the people that do speak out against it have never come close to being that size either.

I have my limits too, but there is no way Johhny is “too fat” in that picture. He was working on all out strength and size…exactly what many here should be if their goal is to be really big in the end.[/quote]

Surely you can agree cutting for a natural is completely different than cutting with copious PED use. So using johnny jackson might be a valid point on bulking up that fat for guys using, but it’s a completely different game for natty’s. [/quote]

There are thousands of people who use steroids who dont look like they lift. Steroids do not guarantee some certain response because genetics are still at the base of what is seen from effort.

No one should be basing their actions on what they think is SUPPOSED to happen.

If you see that condition as being a “fat guy” then we disagree on the concept.

50

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]timmcbride00 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Really?

Johnny Jackson.[/quote]

That’s an awesome picture.

I’m definitely no Johnny Jackson. Just sayin’ what works for me. However, in full disclosure, I have never had a bulk where I got that huge so I can’t say it doesn’t work.

I’m just personally scared to try it. : )

I don’t mind getting a little soft, but I have my limits.[/quote]

Great response…because it would seem that most of the people that do speak out against it have never come close to being that size either.

I have my limits too, but there is no way Johhny is “too fat” in that picture. He was working on all out strength and size…exactly what many here should be if their goal is to be really big in the end.[/quote]

Surely you can agree cutting for a natural is completely different than cutting with copious PED use. So using johnny jackson might be a valid point on bulking up that fat for guys using, but it’s a completely different game for natty’s. [/quote]

There are thousands of people who use steroids who dont look like they lift. Steroids do not guarantee some certain response because genetics are still at the base of what is seen from effort.

No one should be basing their actions on what they think is SUPPOSED to happen.

If you see that condition as being a “fat guy” then we disagree on the concept.[/quote]

No when I look at him I agree I just see a big ass guy just like you. But we just disagree on the benefit of bulking that much as a natural.

51

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]timmcbride00 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Really?

Johnny Jackson.[/quote]

That’s an awesome picture.

I’m definitely no Johnny Jackson. Just sayin’ what works for me. However, in full disclosure, I have never had a bulk where I got that huge so I can’t say it doesn’t work.

I’m just personally scared to try it. : )

I don’t mind getting a little soft, but I have my limits.[/quote]

Great response…because it would seem that most of the people that do speak out against it have never come close to being that size either.

I have my limits too, but there is no way Johhny is “too fat” in that picture. He was working on all out strength and size…exactly what many here should be if their goal is to be really big in the end.[/quote]

Surely you can agree cutting for a natural is completely different than cutting with copious PED use. So using johnny jackson might be a valid point on bulking up that fat for guys using, but it’s a completely different game for natty’s. [/quote]

There are thousands of people who use steroids who dont look like they lift. Steroids do not guarantee some certain response because genetics are still at the base of what is seen from effort.

No one should be basing their actions on what they think is SUPPOSED to happen.

If you see that condition as being a “fat guy” then we disagree on the concept.[/quote]

No when I look at him I agree I just see a big ass guy just like you. But we just disagree on the benefit of bulking that much as a natural. [/quote]

Natural or assisted has nothing to do with it. You base your actions on the results you get DUE TO YOUR OWN GENETICS.

That is why your statement is incorrect. Someone using steroids does not guarantee some certain response to them…so NO, you do not base your actions on whether someone is natural alone or not.

Steroids have nothing to do with this discussion and I am not sure why you brought that up.

52

Just going around telling people their views are incorrect doesn’t make it so.

53

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]timmcbride00 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Really?

Johnny Jackson.[/quote]

That’s an awesome picture.

I’m definitely no Johnny Jackson. Just sayin’ what works for me. However, in full disclosure, I have never had a bulk where I got that huge so I can’t say it doesn’t work.

I’m just personally scared to try it. : )

I don’t mind getting a little soft, but I have my limits.[/quote]

Great response…because it would seem that most of the people that do speak out against it have never come close to being that size either.

I have my limits too, but there is no way Johhny is “too fat” in that picture. He was working on all out strength and size…exactly what many here should be if their goal is to be really big in the end.[/quote]

Surely you can agree cutting for a natural is completely different than cutting with copious PED use. So using johnny jackson might be a valid point on bulking up that fat for guys using, but it’s a completely different game for natty’s. [/quote]

There are thousands of people who use steroids who dont look like they lift. Steroids do not guarantee some certain response because genetics are still at the base of what is seen from effort.

No one should be basing their actions on what they think is SUPPOSED to happen.

If you see that condition as being a “fat guy” then we disagree on the concept.[/quote]

No when I look at him I agree I just see a big ass guy just like you. But we just disagree on the benefit of bulking that much as a natural. [/quote]

Natural or assisted has nothing to do with it. You base your actions on the results you get DUE TO YOUR OWN GENETICS.

That is why your statement is incorrect. Someone using steroids does not guarantee some certain response to them…so NO, you do not base your actions on whether someone is natural alone or not.

Steroids have nothing to do with this discussion and I am not sure why you brought that up.[/quote]

I’m saying that Clen/t3/DNP and other cutting agents make getting lean easier while preserving muscle. So someone who uses can afford to gain more fat because they can cut more drastically without worrying about any lean mass lost. I’m sure steroid guys like Walkaway could get into the specifics.

I agree that genetics play a big part in how substances affect certain individuals. But that’s not what I was talking about. I’m simply saying cutting assisted is much different than cutting natural

54

I would say that this is an individual thing, both in terms of preference and pragmatics. What I mean by this is that once you get past the point of where you are making improvements in your physique or what you are happy when you look in the mirror, then it is time to consider cutting. That’s the preference, I suppose. In terms of pragmatics, I guess it is a case of knowing yourself and what it takes to reach your goals. For instance, I really struggle to lose body-fat. I have a sluggish metabolism and store a ton of fat in the lower back and love handle/flank area that detracts from the way I look, yet I can be very, very lean in my arms, legs and lower abs. It takes a lot of work and even more time for me to reduce these spots and now that I am well into my 30s, it takes even longer. So, for me, staying leaner is a given and cutting back occurs when these areas go beyond what I want them to be. I’ve often wondered that if I had a more even fat distribution whether things would be different or not.

That said, I know people that drop weight like you wouldn’t believe. The smallest calorie reduction and they drop fat, quickly. So for these people it is less of an issue. Although I cannot relate to them being so different from them, I would imagine that they have more leeway than I to gain and in order to reach their deadline (if they have one). I trained in a gym years ago where one person could go from being pretty soft looking to stage ready easily within 10 - 12 weeks, and that was without excessive restriction.

I hated that guy.

55

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Great response…because it would seem that most of the people that do speak out against it have never come close to being that size either.

I have my limits too, but there is no way Johhny is “too fat” in that picture. He was working on all out strength and size…exactly what many here should be if their goal is to be really big in the end.[/quote]

I agree that he is not “too fat”. He has an amazing amount of muscle and carries the fat very well.

If I were at a similar bodyfat percentage as Johnny Jackson, I would look much worse because I am so much smaller.

I definitely feel that your current size comes into play in terms of how much fat you can hold well.

56

Who would have thought that PX wouldve come into this thread for the sole reason of degenerating it into more bullshit…

57

Really, though, I think that the idea that some have come up with of not letting your bf % exceed your arm circumference is pretty reasonable. Obviously, this doesn’t ring as true the more muscle someone is carrying. Like, if someone has 18-20in arms, it’s not all that much of a loss if they have 18-20% bf.