I only have full fat dairy. It’s healthier and far tastier. The idea of skim milk and cheerios as a healthy breakfast was wrong.
5 Likes
Why is that a negative?
I’m in Britain matey, it’s blue over here. Unfortunately I don’t have straight from the farm money
1 Like
The best physiques in the world have been built from bulking and cutting
1 Like
It’s great if you want to develop healthy stores of fat.
Otherwise it’s probably just as much of a waste of calories as any other liquid calorie.
4 Likes
Why add excess fat / fluid if you don’t have to ??
1 Like
This argument needs to fucking die already… Just because people have done it doesn’t mean it’s OPTIMAL. Why does this have to be explained?
It’s the same thing as saying “Well Jay and Ronnie did it…” while ignoring physiology and demonstrable biology that shows what they were doing wasn’t optimal. They would grow doing anything given their genetics, hyper responder cabilities and drugs. End /
The BuLkInG and cutting aren’t what made their physiques exceptional, genius. Amazing genetics, drugs, years of training (also often sub-optimal) is what did.
Like saying Gatorade made Usain Bolt the fattest man alive.
Improved leverages, achieving a healthy bodyfat for training after being in a low bodyfat state, going up a weight class, having more mass to move objects for drag/pull events, etc.
But my question was why losing fat is a bad thing. Stan Efferding talks about the value of cutting down to get the body sensitive to food again.
The cyclical approach had been used for a long time for a reason.
1 Like
I didn’t say cutting fat is bad… Rather this train of thought thinking “bulking” somehow adds muscle faster than maintenance or slightly above. There’s a point of diminished positive returns and bulking seems to be firmly in the lousy returns lane.
The training stimulus is far more important than the calories. Even Aragon is onboard with this new train of thought. You can grow at maintenance…therefore bulking is unnecessary and likely counterproductive.
2 Likes
Why add fat for leveraging when intracellular hydration is likely more efficient and optimal? Thoughts ?
How is eating above maintenence not bulking?
2 Likes
Only if your food quality sucks
Meh… only to an extent
Maybe we should qualify “bulking”… I’m not into pedantic back and forth. 300 cals over maintenance vs 1000 over. Different outcomes.
3 Likes
I don’t see anyone advocating for 1000 calories over maintenance. I feel that is a strawman. It seems we are both in favor of eating a surplus of calories to gain weight.
1 Like
Not a strawman it’s lending more perspective / nuance to exactly what we can agree on what constitutes a bulk. Dialing it in, so to speak
Growing at maintenance works…a slight surplus @200 cal… seems like it would be a far “cleaner” approach than the typical “bulk” which is just energy toxicity especially considering calories are less important than the training stimulus
4 Likes
I think it depends on the kind of training you are doing.
It seems the argument isn’t that bulking doesn’t work. It’s that there is a threshold of excess that, once suprassed, offers no benefits.
I do not feel anyone thinks differently on the matter.
5 Likes
It does… but the fact you can grow in a deficit shows that calories are less important than originally thought
Agreed. Fist bump. I’m growing slowly, but steadily at maintenance while maintaining visible abs at 47 and training MMA almost full time again.
1 Like