My goal is to be 170lbs cut.
Right now i am 5’9, 160lbs and bulking. I was just wondering, what weight should i bulk up to before cutting to 170lbs?
And how much time could it take?
Just to get an idea. Thanks…
170? Thats only 10 pounds. why not 200? In any case, I think it will depend on how much muscle to fat ratio you will pack on.
[quote]tin_soldier wrote:
170? Thats only 10 pounds. why not 200?[/quote]
Personnal taste i guess. Some ppl want to get as big as possible. Thats not me.
[quote]tin_soldier wrote:
In any case, I think it will depend on how much muscle to fat ratio you will pack on.[/quote]
I want to be ripped at 170lbs. A low amount of bf%, but healthy.
Anyways I was thinking 180lbs than i could cut to my ideal weight of 170lbs.
At 5’9, you should aim to be cut at 200 or 210.
Hell man, I’m three inches shorter and even I want to end up heavier than that.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
At 5’9, you should aim to be cut at 200 or 210.
Hell man, I’m three inches shorter and even I want to end up heavier than that.[/quote]
Now you understand why he is having problems with motivation to hit the gym when he hasn’t even been lifting for years. With goals that minor, how could a person possibly gather the drive necessary to train all out regardless of the weather or how they feel initially before getting the gym?
Add to that the fact that he figured he was at a point where he needed to be bringing up lagging body parts as if he wasn’t still a relative beginner and the picture is pretty clear.
he’s like those guys who peak in high school and then never live up to that same “glory” for the rest of their lives.
With goals so easy to catch, the drive to reach them will always be less than the guy who feels he has a world of change ahead.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
With goals so easy to catch, the drive to reach them will always be less than the guy who feels he has a world of change ahead.[/quote]
Best.Post.Ever.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
At 5’9, you should aim to be cut at 200 or 210.
Hell man, I’m three inches shorter and even I want to end up heavier than that.
Now you understand why he is having problems with motivation to hit the gym when he hasn’t even been lifting for years. With goals that minor, how could a person possibly gather the drive necessary to train all out regardless of the weather or how they feel initially before getting the gym?
Add to that the fact that he figured he was at a point where he needed to be bringing up lagging body parts as if he wasn’t still a relative beginner and the picture is pretty clear.
he’s like those guys who peak in high school and then never live up to that same “glory” for the rest of their lives.
With goals so easy to catch, the drive to reach them will always be less than the guy who feels he has a world of change ahead.[/quote]
Maybe you are right. Let me just say that even if i am not motivated to go to the gym sometimes, i never miss a gym session and never slack off at the gym.
Leaving aside whether I think 170 is big enough at 5’9" (just about my exact height, by the way – although my driver’s license says 5’10" :)), does anyone else think a true “bulk” is unnecessary if you’re only looking to gain ten pounds? I mean, obviously it’s hard to give specific advice without knowing this kid’s bodyfat, etc., but it seems to me that if he only needs to add fifteen or so pounds of muscle and lose five pounds of fat to reach his goal (especially if he’s still a relative beginner with a more responsive body than us “veterans”) he’d be better served just lifting heavy while still doing his cardio, etc., instead of doing a classic bulk and then having to lose the extra fat.
[quote]hit the gym wrote:
Maybe you are right. Let me just say that even if i am not motivated to go to the gym sometimes, i never miss a gym session and never slack off at the gym.[/quote]
No one said you were slacking off. I just know from simple life experience that those who seem to see themselves as “far” from their goal will often be more motivated to fight harder to reach it. I see myself as having a long way to go to get to my goal regardless of how others might see me. That is why I still get to the gym if I initially feel tired. It is why I still make it in thunderstorms. It will be why I wake up before 5am to do cardio.
Your case isn’t very different from the people who say they just want to “tone a little” or “don’t want to get too big”. Someone like that believes they have just a little bit to accomplish. They are more likely to push with less intensity and drive.
In your other thread you wrote that you often feel like not lifting. I don’t feel that way. I feel I have enough changes that need to be made to force me into the gym on a regular basis.
Just saw his photos on the other thread – now I’m even more convinced by the advice I just gave him. Actually I don’t even think he should lose five pounds of fat; if he’s 160 in those photos, 170 and ripped would just mean gaining ten pounds and maintaining leanness. (Of course, I’d like to see him shoot for at least 190 and ripped, but…)
[quote]WhiteCaesar wrote:
Leaving aside whether I think 170 is big enough at 5’9" (just about my exact height, by the way – although my driver’s license says 5’10" :)), does anyone else think a true “bulk” is unnecessary if you’re only looking to gain ten pounds? I mean, obviously it’s hard to give specific advice without knowing this kid’s bodyfat, etc., but it seems to me that if he only needs to add fifteen or so pounds of muscle and lose five pounds of fat to reach his goal (especially if he’s still a relative beginner with a more responsive body than us “veterans”) he’d be better served just lifting heavy while still doing his cardio, etc., instead of doing a classic bulk and then having to lose the extra fat. [/quote]
This guy has several posts on this forum along with his pictures. I also think many people here have a ridiculous concept of “bulking up”. that simply means you are working on size as your main focus without being so strict with your diet that you stop making gains because you are afraid of body fat. It does NOT mean you have to gain body fat in excess to achieve a goal even though it is understood that most people will have a very hard time gaining large amount of muscle without any gains in body fat.
Obviously, someone who gains 30lbs in a year but gained 10lbs of body fat did a great job overall. Someone who gained 30lbs but gained 20lbs of body fat did an absolutely piss poor job. Someone who gained 30lbs but gained 2lbs of body fat would be IDEAL.
[quote]WhiteCaesar wrote:
Leaving aside whether I think 170 is big enough at 5’9" (just about my exact height, by the way – although my driver’s license says 5’10" :)), does anyone else think a true “bulk” is unnecessary if you’re only looking to gain ten pounds? I mean, obviously it’s hard to give specific advice without knowing this kid’s bodyfat, etc., but it seems to me that if he only needs to add fifteen or so pounds of muscle and lose five pounds of fat to reach his goal (especially if he’s still a relative beginner with a more responsive body than us “veterans”) he’d be better served just lifting heavy while still doing his cardio, etc., instead of doing a classic bulk and then having to lose the extra fat. [/quote]
That’s what popped into my mind. Over the course of the past six weeks, I’ve gained about 10-15 pounds of fat and muscle on my bulk. I really have no idea how much of each I’ve gained, but I do know that my lifts keep going up.
I started at about 160 lbs of LBM and have an intermediate goal of 200 lbs of LBM. To me, that’s what I think of when I think about bulking.
I’d imagine adding 10-20 pounds, especially if the person wants to be ripped, would be better done by slightly increasing calories and doing it over the course of several months. Even adding a half pound a week would get you there in less than a year.
Now people are telling others what their goals should be? unreal
[quote]Defender wrote:
I’d imagine adding 10-20 pounds, especially if the person wants to be ripped, would be better done by slightly increasing calories and doing it over the course of several months. Even adding a half pound a week would get you there in less than a year.[/quote]
No disagreement with that at all.
[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
Professor X wrote:
With goals so easy to catch, the drive to reach them will always be less than the guy who feels he has a world of change ahead.
Best.Post.Ever.
[/quote]
i’ll second that
Bulk up to 240lbs then cut your way back.
See Prof X, no need to get cross at him, just got to feed him info that will help him out.
Once he gets to 240 he won’t want to get to 170 anymore.
Instead of berating him for having small goals, make him think his first goal is ENORMOUSLY far away and get him going to it.
Thing is this guy is 160lbs and that 170lbs is a lot of weight, it is in fact 10lbs more than current. What he doesn’t realise is that 10lbs heavier he will hardly notice and is still small. 10lbs spread over your whole body is hardly noticeable when you are 160lbs. If it was 100% in your arms maybe you’d notice it. Going from 160 to 170 he will think “gee I look the same, really”. It is not that he is setting goals low it is that he doesn’t realise that they are low.
Once he achieves it he will realise it wasn’t that big a deal and should have had a bigger goal.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Defender wrote:
I’d imagine adding 10-20 pounds, especially if the person wants to be ripped, would be better done by slightly increasing calories and doing it over the course of several months. Even adding a half pound a week would get you there in less than a year.
No disagreement with that at all.[/quote]
Prof, how is his advice different from mine, which you appeared not to agree with? Were you just saying I have a misconception about what “bulking” means? I guess maybe I do; I just always figure that when most people talk about “bulking,” they aren’t using it to mean simply getting bigger but as the opposite of (and, usually, the prelude to) “cutting.” I mean, there was a whole thread on here a while ago devoted to the “bulk belly.”
[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Bulk up to 240lbs then cut your way back.
See Prof X, no need to get cross at him, just got to feed him info that will help him out.
Once he gets to 240 he won’t want to get to 170 anymore.
Instead of berating him for having small goals, make him think his first goal is ENORMOUSLY far away and get him going to it.
Thing is this guy is 160lbs and that 170lbs is a lot of weight, it is in fact 10lbs more than current. What he doesn’t realise is that 10lbs heavier he will hardly notice and is still small. 10lbs spread over your whole body is hardly noticeable when you are 160lbs. If it was 100% in your arms maybe you’d notice it. Going from 160 to 170 he will think “gee I look the same, really”. It is not that he is setting goals low it is that he doesn’t realise that they are low.
Once he achieves it he will realise it wasn’t that big a deal and should have had a bigger goal.[/quote]
Isn’t the rule of thumb that your arms increase in circumference by 1" for every 15 pounds of muscle? If that’s the case, a 15 pound increase in LBM would only yield a 1/3" inch increase in arm diameter – barely noticeable.
[quote]WhiteCaesar wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Defender wrote:
I’d imagine adding 10-20 pounds, especially if the person wants to be ripped, would be better done by slightly increasing calories and doing it over the course of several months. Even adding a half pound a week would get you there in less than a year.
No disagreement with that at all.
Prof, how is his advice different from mine, which you appeared not to agree with? Were you just saying I have a misconception about what “bulking” means? I guess maybe I do; I just always figure that when most people talk about “bulking,” they aren’t using it to mean simply getting bigger but as the opposite of (and, usually, the prelude to) “cutting.” I mean, there was a whole thread on here a while ago devoted to the “bulk belly.”
[/quote]
Yes, your concept of what bulking means seemed off (or maybe I misunderstood you). Many guys seem to think that bulking up means become obese. I was making it clear what it truly means. You also have several guys on this forum who seem to think that if you can’t see your abs that you are “excessively fat” which is also ridiculous and depends on the goals of the individual.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
…it is understood that most people will have a very hard time gaining large amount of muscle without any gains in body fat.
[/quote]
Maybe I misconstrued your post to be attacking mine or maybe mine just wasn’t clear enough, but I feel as though you and I are saying just about the same thing. I completely agree that it’s hard to gain a large amount of muscle without gaining fat; I just feel (and I’m sure you’d agree) that ten pounds – particularly for a relative beginner – doesn’t really qualify as a “large amount of muscle.”