Cycling weight gain?

[tweakxc03]

Just a thought in response to Rip's post on Zach's progress in the Q&A forum...

I have absolutely no desire to put on 32 pounds of fat. ever. Call me a pussy, i don't care. Getting laid is more important to me than putting on 46 pounds of muscle and then turning around to try and lose 30 pounds of fat... as is being able to perform at a high level of athletic ability (which means not lugging around 30 pounds of dead weight).

I understand that gaining muscle mass and strength is done the fastest by adding on fat in the process. I know this and get that it is part of the deal.

However, I also have other goals to work with besides just adding bulk for the sake of bulk.

Wouldn't it make more sense, considering these goals, to cycle the bulking phase with a "leaning out" period before resuming the bulk? For example, put on 20-30 pounds (perhaps 15 pounds of that is muscle), then throw in metcon, burn fat to return to a certain level of leanness while retaining a majority of the muscle mass (hopefully). Then once you're lean again, start the process over.

That way, it may take longer to reach a given "goal" weight, but at the same time, you won't end up having to lose 30 pounds of fat either.

[gzt]

"Being skinny" isn't what gets you laid. Girls really don't care if you have a little junk in the trunk, especially if you've got a big motor.

Anyway. So you have other goals. See how competitive powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters solve this dilemma. They typically deal with the economic problem of maximal strength vs weight class.

[tweakxc03]

haha i understand that... however, my girlfriend is not one to like body fat.

SOME fat gain is fine... 32 pounds of it... not so much.

Not to mention I would go broke trying to replace work clothes. The max strength for weight class is the way to go.

[banthafodder]

However, I also have other goals to work with besides just adding bulk for the sake of bulk.

Clearly it's not bulk for the sake of bulk; that's intentionally mischaracterizing it. It's bulk for the sake of strength.


That way, it may take longer to reach a given "goal" weight, but at the same time, you won't end up having to lose 30 pounds of fat either.

Sure you will. You'll just be losing it 5-10 lbs at a time, and taking longer overall to reach your target. It sounds like you're willing to make this tradeoff; if so, go for it. As long as you don't lose your strength while you're cutting fat, you'll be fine, as long as you're also fine with taking months or years longer to reach your final goals.

[Force Production]

tweakxc03, http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/general-philosophies-of-muscle-mass-gain.html

Start reading from A Happy Medium: Bulk a Little, Cut a Little if you don't want to the read the whole article.

[The Laughing Man]

I have absolutely no desire to put on 32 pounds of fat. ever. Call me a pussy, i don't care. Getting laid is more important to me than putting on 46 pounds of muscle and then turning around to try and lose 30 pounds of fat... as is being able to perform at a high level of athletic ability (which means not lugging around 30 pounds of dead weight).

Amen to that!

I'm a powerlifter, and cop a bit of shit for not wanting to get as strong as possible - aka, getting fat. But fuck that, I don't think I'm sacrificing much at all by staying relatively lean, gunning a 600@181 dead this April.

God I love weight classes =P


Wouldn't it make more sense, considering these goals, to cycle the bulking phase with a "leaning out" period before resuming the bulk? For example, put on 20-30 pounds (perhaps 15 pounds of that is muscle), then throw in metcon, burn fat to return to a certain level of leanness while retaining a majority of the muscle mass (hopefully). Then once you're lean again, start the process over.

You've just described the classic bulk/cut method, which has been proven to work - many methods work though, and each have their pros and cons ofcourse.