Bulk or Cut, 185 lbs

dude also your lifts are good, but your deadlift work is overshadowing your other back work, and I suspect you feel your bench is trailing, and I think that is because you are not doing enough pulling exercises other than deadlift, I could of course be completely wrong I am basing this on one picture.

during your brief cutting phase you should try and fix any of the limiting lifts.

and you should do very few sets of very few reps at say 90% of your current strength levels once a week. e.g once a fortnight do 2 sets of 1 rep deadlift near your max. … once a week, do a the same for squat. to keep your body thinking it needs to keep the strength and muscle mass.

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
You should cut.

People will think I am mad but here are my reasons:

  1. you obviously want to cut, for summer, and get the chics

  2. if you cut down, and THEN start a bulk, it is far more effective than if you simply start a bulk from previously bulking / eating well.

So I say cut for 4 weeks, you will look great, do a lot of GPP work, enjoy the summer, prepare for your mother of all bulks to start in say 8 weeks. By prepare I mean really nail down where the calories will come from and accumulate the food e.g peanut butter etc… whey etc… deep freeze full of meat.

If you are cut and done lots of GPP at the start of the bulk, then the bulking will go real well.

[/quote]

I think I will cut for 2 week for the beach while landscapeing , then back to the bulk

[quote]Ape Escape wrote:
kroby wrote:

Are you interested in your body fat or your muscle? If you’re interested in muscle gains, STOP thinking or worrying about your body fat. Ignore it. Completely. Why do you care what % you are? Why not care about the muscle you put on?

I say go for 250, then cut. You just may end up around 215. I think that’s small, but maybe you don’t.

I care what my bodyfat% is because once you reach 17% you reach a point of diminishing returns( instead of gaining 1 lbs of fat for every pound of muscle you gain 3 lbs of fat for every pound of muscle)

You think 215 is small, you weigh less than that?![/quote]

I never heard about gaining extra fat after 17%, can you tell where you got that from? I’m just curious, I’m not trying to challenge you or anything

[quote]Black Flag wrote:

I never heard about gaining extra fat after 17%, can you tell where you got that from? I’m just curious, I’m not trying to challenge you or anything

[/quote]

A Training Philosophy For Solid Mass Gain
by: Kelly Baggett

Foundational Principles

  1. Maximizing Partitioning

A natural trainee can maximize environmental factors that affect his partitioning by training at the right frequency with the right type and dosage of training, eating enough food, sleeping enough, staying relatively stress free, and keeping his body composition within his ?optimum muscle building window? which, generally speaking, is between the range of 10-17% body-fat for most males and 12-20% for most females.

At less then about 10% body-fat, levels of various anabolic hormones such as testosterone go to crap, (unless you were born at 5% body-fat). At the other end, anymore then 17% body-fat and sensitivity to various anabolic hormones goes down the drain.

  1. Nutrition

How powerful is the effect of eating? Studies have been done on overfeeding where people were fed an additional 1000 calories per day for 100 days without any training whatsoever. Of the weight they gained, even in the absence of exercise, an average of 35% was lean muscle mass.

  1. Genetic Limits

“Genetic limits” really refers to how much muscle mass a person can carry at a given body-fat percentage and not how much muscle mass they can carry overall. Your ?genetic natural limit? while maintaining a lean 6% body-fat might be 200 lbs.

But if you train and eat your way up to a 300-pound bodyweight, sure as hell you will be carrying more then 200 pounds of muscle. This is why the biggest sumo wrestlers, who do little besides eat, on average carry more muscle mass then the biggest bodybuilders. That?s not a recommendation to go out and get as fat as an oversized water buffalo, but it is reality.

[quote]Black Flag wrote:
Ape Escape wrote:
kroby wrote:

Are you interested in your body fat or your muscle? If you’re interested in muscle gains, STOP thinking or worrying about your body fat. Ignore it. Completely. Why do you care what % you are? Why not care about the muscle you put on?

I say go for 250, then cut. You just may end up around 215. I think that’s small, but maybe you don’t.

I care what my bodyfat% is because once you reach 17% you reach a point of diminishing returns( instead of gaining 1 lbs of fat for every pound of muscle you gain 3 lbs of fat for every pound of muscle)

You think 215 is small, you weigh less than that?!

I never heard about gaining extra fat after 17%, can you tell where you got that from? I’m just curious, I’m not trying to challenge you or anything

[/quote]

I’ll challenge him. Could one person show where that bullshit comes from aside from some personal trainer talking loosely out of his ass?

The entire idea makes no sense. Your body is a little more complex than, “oops, we hit 17.9% body fat, let’s stop gaining muscle so fast!”.

[quote]Ape Escape wrote:
Black Flag wrote:

I never heard about gaining extra fat after 17%, can you tell where you got that from? I’m just curious, I’m not trying to challenge you or anything

A Training Philosophy For Solid Mass Gain
by: Kelly Baggett

Foundational Principles

  1. Maximizing Partitioning

A natural trainee can maximize environmental factors that affect his partitioning by training at the right frequency with the right type and dosage of training, eating enough food, sleeping enough, staying relatively stress free, and keeping his body composition within his ?optimum muscle building window? which, generally speaking, is between the range of 10-17% body-fat for most males and 12-20% for most females.

At less then about 10% body-fat, levels of various anabolic hormones such as testosterone go to crap, (unless you were born at 5% body-fat). At the other end, anymore then 17% body-fat and sensitivity to various anabolic hormones goes down the drain.

  1. Nutrition

How powerful is the effect of eating? Studies have been done on overfeeding where people were fed an additional 1000 calories per day for 100 days without any training whatsoever. Of the weight they gained, even in the absence of exercise, an average of 35% was lean muscle mass.

  1. Genetic Limits

“Genetic limits” really refers to how much muscle mass a person can carry at a given body-fat percentage and not how much muscle mass they can carry overall. Your ?genetic natural limit? while maintaining a lean 6% body-fat might be 200 lbs.

But if you train and eat your way up to a 300-pound bodyweight, sure as hell you will be carrying more then 200 pounds of muscle. This is why the biggest sumo wrestlers, who do little besides eat, on average carry more muscle mass then the biggest bodybuilders. That?s not a recommendation to go out and get as fat as an oversized water buffalo, but it is reality. [/quote]

No, I don’t think “quotes from personal trainers” counts as proof of anything. I am really really surprised at the numbers of people confused on this issue.

This is much like the “drink 8 glasses of water” thing. No one quite knows who originally started the “8 glasses” thing or how it was proven to be the magic number of “glasses”, but since it kept getting repeated over and over, the public just quietly accepted it until it started appearing in Saturday morning cartoons.

PROOF is a little more complex than, “well he/she said it”, especially when there are people who disagree.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Black Flag wrote:
Ape Escape wrote:
kroby wrote:

Are you interested in your body fat or your muscle? If you’re interested in muscle gains, STOP thinking or worrying about your body fat. Ignore it. Completely. Why do you care what % you are? Why not care about the muscle you put on?

I say go for 250, then cut. You just may end up around 215. I think that’s small, but maybe you don’t.

I care what my bodyfat% is because once you reach 17% you reach a point of diminishing returns( instead of gaining 1 lbs of fat for every pound of muscle you gain 3 lbs of fat for every pound of muscle)

You think 215 is small, you weigh less than that?!

I never heard about gaining extra fat after 17%, can you tell where you got that from? I’m just curious, I’m not trying to challenge you or anything

I’ll challenge him. Could one person show where that bullshit comes from aside from some personal trainer talking loosely out of his ass?

The entire idea makes no sense. Your body is a little more complex than, “oops, we hit 17.9% body fat, let’s stop gaining muscle so fast!”.

[/quote]

Its just the same if your bodfat is too low it won’t be in the optimal muscle building range which is supposably between 10% and 17% bodyfat

[quote]Ape Escape wrote:

Its just the same if your bodfat is too low it won’t be in the optimal muscle building range which is supposably between 10% and 17% bodyfat[/quote]

Actually, it isn’t just the same. Your body can’t function properly without body fat. Fat in your body serves more purposes than just energy storage. It is also the tissue that protects internal organs and even surrounds some nerve tissue.

It is absolutely correct that your body will not run optimally at an extremely low body fat percentage. It is not correct that at anything above 17% body fat, you start to store more body fat as opposed to muscle growth.

It is definitely not correct that you start to store, what was it…3lbs of body fat for every pound of muscle like you stated previously. That is complete nonsense and you won’t find any proof of that anywhere. To even make the statement that everyone’s body will consider “17% and above” to be outside of optimal range for their own body is ridiculous.

Some of you could stand to buy a biology book before you buy another book from whatever personal trainer you admire the most.

That doesn’t mean stop learning. It means understand the difference between opinion and bias from a personal trainer…and proven knowledge in science. The two are not the same which is why you don’t get all of your info from only one source.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ape Escape wrote:

Its just the same if your bodfat is too low it won’t be in the optimal muscle building range which is supposably between 10% and 17% bodyfat

It is absolutely correct that your body will not run optimally at an extremely low body fat percentage. It is not correct that at anything above 17% body fat, you start to store more body fat as opposed to muscle growth.

It is definitely not correct that you start to store, what was it…3lbs of body fat for every pound of muscle like you stated previously. That is complete nonsense and you won’t find any proof of that anywhere.

quote]

I know thats not true, the 3 lbs of fat for 1 pound of muscle. I was just trying to make a point.

And bulking isn’t best for most people at a high bodyfat but for a very few it might be so

[quote]Ape Escape wrote:

Its just the same if your bodfat is too low it won’t be in the optimal muscle building range which is supposably between 10% and 17% bodyfat[/quote]

So you are saying that all of those offensive and defensive linemen in the NFL are not gaining the optimal strength and musculature needed because their bf% is probably over that 17% range?

Your thinking process is flawed. Just because one extreme causes one result, doesn’t mean the other extreme will do the same.

-LH

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ape Escape wrote:

Its just the same if your bodfat is too low it won’t be in the optimal muscle building range which is supposably between 10% and 17% bodyfat

Actually, it isn’t just the same. Your body can’t function properly without body fat. Fat in your body serves more purposes than just energy storage. It is also the tissue that protects internal organs and even surrounds some nerve tissue.
[/quote]

Actually, fat really doesn’t do much for internal organ protection. Sure you need fat, but saying that someone who’s at 7% bf has less organ protection than someone at 20% isn’t true.
Also, I think the OP isn’t suggesting not eating any fats but is suggesting losing fat. Big difference.

[quote]LevelHeaded wrote:
Ape Escape wrote:

Its just the same if your bodfat is too low it won’t be in the optimal muscle building range which is supposably between 10% and 17% bodyfat

So you are saying that all of those offensive and defensive linemen in the NFL are not gaining the optimal strength and musculature needed because their bf% is probably over that 17% range?

Your thinking process is flawed. Just because one extreme causes one result, doesn’t mean the other extreme will do the same.

-LH[/quote]

They are gaining optimal strength, but optimal muscle mass is not happening, its not even there goal.

[quote]P1 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Ape Escape wrote:

Its just the same if your bodfat is too low it won’t be in the optimal muscle building range which is supposably between 10% and 17% bodyfat

Actually, it isn’t just the same. Your body can’t function properly without body fat. Fat in your body serves more purposes than just energy storage. It is also the tissue that protects internal organs and even surrounds some nerve tissue.

Actually, fat really doesn’t do much for internal organ protection. Sure you need fat, but saying that someone who’s at 7% bf has less organ protection than someone at 20% isn’t true.
Also, I think the OP isn’t suggesting not eating any fats but is suggesting losing fat. Big difference. [/quote]

Who said anything about someone with 7% body fat not having an omentum? I said EXTREMELY LOW BODY FAT PERCENTAGES. If you needed that defined, you should have asked.

Look up OMENTUM to find out why fat does protect internal organs.

Omentum: A sheet of fat that is covered by peritoneum. The greater omentum is attached to the bottom edge of the stomach, and hangs down in front of the intestines. Its other edge is attached to the transverse colon. The lesser omentum is attached to the top edge of the stomach, and extends to the undersurface of the liver.

From http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4632
since there seem to be some who didn’t know that the membrane that supports their internal organs is largely fatty tissue.

I can tell you from human dissection that this sheet of fat can get to be VERY fat and is largely why some men have hard “beer bellies” even though they seem to not be carrying much subcutaneous fat.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
P1 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Ape Escape wrote:

Its just the same if your bodfat is too low it won’t be in the optimal muscle building range which is supposably between 10% and 17% bodyfat

Actually, it isn’t just the same. Your body can’t function properly without body fat. Fat in your body serves more purposes than just energy storage. It is also the tissue that protects internal organs and even surrounds some nerve tissue.

Actually, fat really doesn’t do much for internal organ protection. Sure you need fat, but saying that someone who’s at 7% bf has less organ protection than someone at 20% isn’t true.
Also, I think the OP isn’t suggesting not eating any fats but is suggesting losing fat. Big difference.

Who said anything about someone with 7% body fat not having an omentum? I said EXTREMELY LOW BODY FAT PERCENTAGES. If you needed that defined, you should have asked.

Look up OMENTUM to find out why fat does protect internal organs.
[/quote]

Your posts are misleading. The OP wants to know whether to cut or bulk and you point out that the body needs fat to function properly.

[quote]P1 wrote:

Your posts are misleading. The OP wants to know whether to cut or bulk and you point out that the body needs fat to function properly.
[/quote]

How are my posts misleading? Most of the people even concerned about what their specific body fat percentage is should NOT be. I have already made it clear that he shouldn’t be dieting based on some concept that his body will stop gaining muscle as fast at a certain body fact percentage. How is this not clear to you? Aren’t you in high school? I swear, someone can write this out as basically as possible and many of you will still make it unnecessarily complicated.

In five years, let me know how that works out for you. I already know that the guys who acted like you when I first got here years ago never made much progress. The cycle apparently never ends.

I really fear these forums are bringing out the @$$hole in me.

How can you be training for 5 years, 2 seriously and have to ask whether you should bulk or cut in the first place?

You don’t know whether you want to get bigger or not?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I really fear these forums are bringing out the @$$hole in me.

How can you be training for 5 years, 2 seriously and have to ask whether you should bulk or cut in the first place?

You don’t know whether you want to get bigger or not?[/quote]

Yeah I guess its a stupid question to ask, my goal is to bulk to 200 or more pounds. I was just thinking of doing short cut of 1-2 week

[quote]Ape Escape wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
I really fear these forums are bringing out the @$$hole in me.

How can you be training for 5 years, 2 seriously and have to ask whether you should bulk or cut in the first place?

You don’t know whether you want to get bigger or not?

Yeah I guess its a stupid question to ask, my goal is to bulk to 200 or more pounds. I was just thinking of doing short cut of 1-2 week[/quote]

I don’t even know how to respond to a 1-2 week anything unless you’re 1-2 weeks out from a contest.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ape Escape wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
I really fear these forums are bringing out the @$$hole in me.

How can you be training for 5 years, 2 seriously and have to ask whether you should bulk or cut in the first place?

You don’t know whether you want to get bigger or not?

Yeah I guess its a stupid question to ask, my goal is to bulk to 200 or more pounds. I was just thinking of doing short cut of 1-2 week

I don’t even know how to respond to a 1-2 week anything unless you’re 1-2 weeks out from a contest.[/quote]

Something like the ABCDE diet