Maintenance vs. Cycling

Training Bodybuilding
21

[quote]G87 wrote:
Thanks, Bill.

I gained 15kg/33 lbs this 4-month cycle (first bulk ever), of which I expect 11-12 to be “net” mass gain (i.e. not related to extra water retention and eating more food).

I remember reading that a 2-1 ratio of muscle-fat gain is considered good… So, I’ll have gained at least 9 lbs of fat over 16 weeks. Of course, I was skinny-fat to begin with, and all of those 9 lbs seem to be stored in my stomach, hence the pregnant look.

Anyway, do you think ±9 lbs and ±18 lbs of muscle (&muscle-related) weight gain is an acceptable ratio? I respect your opinion a lot, and am interested in minimising fat gains on my next bulk. I’m already eating very clean (no alcohol, no cheats except for Metabolic Drive bars and fruit), and started adding cardio about halfway into my bulk. I’m now considering following Thibaudeau’s carb cycling codex for my cut and next bulk. What do you think?

Also, this is an unrelated question, but, hey, it’s worth a try… Would you do a 4/5 way bodybuilding split on a cut, or a 3/day split for strength with 2 days of complexes/lactic work for fat loss?

G[/quote]

Hmm, well, I wouldn’t figure it that way. I wouldn’t think 21-22 lb of it to be water retention and extra food in the system – unless water retention is truly horrible – and so would not assume mass gain, excluding those factors, is only 11-12 lb out of 33 total. It might be more like 20 lb or a little more.

Though on the other hand in your next paragraph you say 18 lb of muscle and 9 lb of fat, which would total to about 27 lb, which is drastically more than the 11-12 lb net that you say in the paragraph. So I don’t know which you mean, actually. It is likely that assuming only 6 lb is added water and food in the system, as the 9-lb-fat-18-lb-muscle estimation does, is going the other direction of underestimating how much weight is, so to speak, “not real.”

Second I wouldn’t even begin to assume a method such as some general rule on a good ratio of muscle to fat gain could be used to predict what happened for a given individual.

There’s just no telling how much fat may be involved without having done any sort of body comp or circumference measurements.

If in fact your estimate is right and you gained about 9 lb of fat in 16 weeks (bad idea to make a cycle that long though) then that was an appropriate rate of fat gain.

I’m not familiar with Thib’s codex and so can’t comment. I would expect it is good as I haven’t been reading stupid stuff from him by any means. But that would be my only basis for saying.

You have me on two in a row: I know little about the second type of training you mention, either, other than what it is, and so can’t really comment.

22

Bill

I think I might’ve confused you and others with kg/lbs. In the first paragraph, I’m talking in kilos, hence the 11-12, which works out to 24-26 lbs of net mass gain. I think in kilos myself, and convert into lbs for this forum, hence the mix-up. Sorry about that :).

You think 16 weeks is too long for a bulk? (Is that what you mean by “cycle”)? People on here keep going on about “bulk for 2 years and come back,” lol, so I was feeling guilty about dieting down after a 16 week bulk :).

It’s funny how much weight can fluctuate day-to-day. I went on a week-long vacation, and since I had to eat less (in terms of volume) and walked a lot, I leaned out a bit, and it feels like I lost quite of water too. Anyway, my weight dropped from almost 200 to about 190!

Thanks for all the help again, Bill.

23

Have you tried Poliquin’s German Body Comp? If you don’t want to slash calories, greatly reduce carbs, do fasted cardio, etc. then I advise you to do this program or something along these lines. I like to eat food, I don’t want to cut that many calories.

I value my time, I don’t want to waste it doing cardio. This program is everything its cracked up to be.

24

[quote]G87 wrote:
Bill

I think I might’ve confused you and others with kg/lbs. In the first paragraph, I’m talking in kilos, hence the 11-12, which works out to 24-26 lbs of net mass gain. I think in kilos myself, and convert into lbs for this forum, hence the mix-up. Sorry about that :). [/quote]

Not at all: it should have been obvious to me. Actually it was clear enough.

No, I had thought in the context of your referring to what I was misreading as a large estimate for water retention and calling it a cycle, that it was a steroid cycle. For which 16 weeks is unwise.

I’m sorry for the misinterpretations: glad that other parts were of use!