Bulk or Cut, 185 lbs

Off Topic Rate My Physique Photos
41

[quote]Ape Escape wrote:
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.

Something like the ABCDE diet[/quote]

That diet is largely ineffective and it has been out for enough years for most to know it. Any true progress by changing your caloric intake that often would, in my opinion, only benefit those who are natural mesomorphs and will still gain more muscle than average.

In 1 week, most of any loss on a low carb calorie restricted diet is due to water weight. That means planning a cut for 1-2 weeks is mostly pointless and is playing around with glycogen levels more than it is actually helping you get much leaner.

That means make a choice. Either work on getting leaner or work on building muscle. Basing your choice on your “calculated body fat percentage” alone (which is more than likely inaccurate even with calipers) would be a mistake.

42

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

Something like the ABCDE diet

That diet is largely ineffective and it has been out for enough years for most to know it. Any true progress by changing your caloric intake that often would, in my opinion, only benefit those who are natural mesomorphs and will still gain more muscle than average.

In 1 week, most of any loss on a low carb calorie restricted diet is due to water weight. That means planning a cut for 1-2 weeks is mostly pointless and is playing around with glycogen levels more than it is actually helping you get much leaner.

That means make a choice. Either work on getting leaner or work on building muscle. Basing your choice on your “calculated body fat percentage” alone (which is more than likely inaccurate even with calipers) would be a mistake.[/quote]

Thank you for your input Professor X

43

Personal experience, you wont be happy at 200, atleast I wasnt. I was 185 than went to 200 and just kept on going. By the time I reached 217 I hurt my knee and cut down to 200 but I didn’t fucking care, I say get as big as possible.

44


I now weigh 192 lbs in the morning 195 at night

The pic I’m posting is bad quality, I’ll get a better one soon, I am a little leaner now and I have a better v-taper. legs are 26.5" and Arms are 15- 6/8"

45

[quote]Ape Escape wrote:
I now weigh 192 lbs in the morning 195 at night

The pic I’m posting is bad quality, I’ll get a better one soon, I am a little leaner now and I have a better v-taper. legs are 26.5" and Arms are 15- 6/8"[/quote]

Lemme guess, you lost your cable? =]

46

Wasnt Kelly Bagget the dietician that Eliteballer quoted somewhere in his thread who said that insulin is a highly anabolic hormone and you want as much as possible?

47

[quote]naughtybox wrote:
Personal experience, you wont be happy at 200, atleast I wasnt. I was 185 than went to 200 and just kept on going. By the time I reached 217 I hurt my knee and cut down to 200 but I didn’t fucking care, I say get as big as possible.[/quote]

I think if more guys would just stop worrying about getting a little soft and went for some size and strength for enough time to see some real results TC,s noble dream of reviving the hardcore population just might come to pass.

I’m not going to bore anyone with my story for the 100th time, but I got back into training just to keep from dying young of complications from diabetes. Once I saw the gains start up, especially after a few months on the Anabolic Diet I buckled down and hit the iron AND the food like I really meant it.

For men at least size and power are addictive AND HEALTHY. It’s a shame this obsession with Ryan Reynolds and Brad Pitt has gotten such a grip on people on an entire generation.

48

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
naughtybox wrote:
Personal experience, you wont be happy at 200, atleast I wasnt. I was 185 than went to 200 and just kept on going. By the time I reached 217 I hurt my knee and cut down to 200 but I didn’t fucking care, I say get as big as possible.

I think if more guys would just stop worrying about getting a little soft and went for some size and strength for enough time to see some real results TC,s noble dream of reviving the hardcore population just might come to pass.

I’m not going to bore anyone with my story for the 100th time, but I got back into training just to keep from dying young of complications from diabetes. Once I saw the gains start up, especially after a few months on the Anabolic Diet I buckled down and hit the iron AND the food like I really meant it.

For men at least size and power are addictive AND HEALTHY. It’s a shame this obsession with Ryan Reynolds and Brad Pitt has gotten such a grip on people on an entire generation.[/quote]

Great post. I know it’s been said before, but Brad Pitt/Ryan Reynold’s physiques would not stick out in a crowd, it would not get any attention, it is small and lean, that is it. Unless you plan on walking around shirtless for the rest of your life, the abercrombie model size is a shitty goal to have.

I’m still at a loss for why so many people aim for mediocrity, yes being lean is wonderful, woohoo. But why is being lean more desirable than being strong, and actually looking impressive with clothes on!

I’ve been at extreme low levels of bodyfat, I felt like shit and was constantly tired, often sick as well. I walked around at under 4% bodyfat for months (I had the body of an anorexic teenage girl). I never want to go back to that again, I was small, I was very weak, but I was lean, however my leanness somehow didn’t make up for the rest that was lacking. Do people actually think that a 6 pack makes up for a chest the same size as your waist?

Simply put the amount of mass I’ve put on since then would make up for the loss of my abs in an instant, a trade I would make any day of the week, even if it meant that I wouldn’t be impressing the random people at the beach with my super definition.

Edit: I apologize on behalf of my generation for the obsession with Ryan Reynolds and Brad Pitt type bodies that you mentioned. It’s amazing the goals some people my age have when it comes to their body, simply astounding. We truly are perpetuating this crap, even bringing it to a whole new level. Two days ago I had to convince my friend (wants to see his abs, imagine that) not to buy an ab lounge.

It was a very hard argument, he appeared to have the infomercial memorized and basically reiterated the same crap about range of motion of a crunch. I lost count of how many times i said “diet matters more” or “why the hell do you think crunches will get rid of the keg you have been growing?”

49

[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.

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]

You’re ignoring the fact that increased bf% increases risk for adult-onset diabetes. What happens is that as the bf% increases, at some point insulin sensitivity starts to decrease (to the point of total insulin sensitivity and therefore halting of insulin production, i.e. diabetes).

Now insulin being the shuttling mechanism it is for nutrients to get to your muslces, it’s plainfully obvious that decreased insulin sensitivity is in no way desirable for optimal muscle gains.

What does this have to do with disecting cadavers, btw (as interesting as that may be, it seems way off topic).

50

[quote]grv575 wrote:
<<< You’re ignoring the fact that increased bf% increases risk for adult-onset diabetes. What happens is that as the bf% increases, at some point insulin sensitivity starts to decrease (to the point of total insulin sensitivity and therefore halting of insulin production, i.e. diabetes). >>>[/quote]

This will be an issue for so infinitesimally few people who actually train that mentioning it in this context is meaningless.

51

I think the title of your thread answers the question…185- bulk or cut…what do you think?

52

[quote]Jason 9 wrote:
I think the title of your thread answers the question…185- bulk or cut…what do you think?[/quote]

Yeah, i know bulk, i guess it was the summer that was tempting me to cut but i didn’t. 4 months ago i weighed 170 lbs now i weigh 198.5 lbs at night.

53

Lol i know the summer sixpack sindrome…good choice by settling to bulk and saying goodbye to the abs at least for now…it will pay off in the long run…later bro

54

[quote]Jason 9 wrote:
Lol i know the summer sixpack sindrome…good choice by settling to bulk and saying goodbye to the abs at least for now…it will pay off in the long run…later bro[/quote]

thanks man

55

do more trap work that will round out your upper body. . . don’t skip the legs and calfs

Solid

56

350×528 31.1 KB

Ok this is me at 195-200 lbs.

I haven’t much gained strength or size in the last 2 months so i am going to do a 2 month slow cut to prime my system. I will then bulk for 5 months, kind of like what caveman does. Is 3 months the optimal time to bulk, because after that i saw diminishing returns in my strength and muscle gains?

57

I think he meant to gain weight and maintain 17% bodyfat. Even then it doesn’t sound right

59


ok this pic is me at 180 with a 30" waist when I was 193 it was 32.5 anyway i want to start bulking again next mon… what weight should i bulk to to look good when cut

60


same weight a lil bloated i’ll have new more ripped pics in a week