What would happen if someone did a 400~500kcal daily surplus bulk - so, not a lean bulk, but not exactly a dirty one either - but did a 48 hours fast every 2 weeks?
Would it be of any use to trim the excess fat to the degree of lengthening the period of bulk before needing to do a dedicated cut? Without hindering the gain of muscle mass?
Have anyone tried this? Give your opinions.
no gains. cut out the fast for, you guessed it, gains
No gains? Nada?
Shit methods will work somewhat on novices but you should just do a beginner strength program and bulk on +500. That's a pound a week. If you actually do that for six months you'll be a marble Hercules.
The sad thing is you won't. It's so simple and easy to understand. It works every time. It doesn't take much willpower at all.
And yet you will not do it.
You have no idea what the frick you're talking about, don't just regurgitate shit you hear on this site.
Take your meds.
stupid c**t frick off
No. You can still make gains if you're fat adapted and have low insulin levels.
SEX WITH CARTOON OGRE.
UNDERSTAND.
Get away from my wife.
You both better back off from my wife
YOU WILL
True fast are pretty bad for gains. Carb cycling or doing 1 or 2 week keto cuts or p-smf are more useful every 3 or 4 months. I wouldn't do it more often especially not if your still numbers going up you can wind up sabotaging yourself easy by cutting too often.
Try it, I don't see why it wouldn't work, maybe you'll need to do some adjustments, like the size of the surplus, the length of fasting and fasting frequency. And if it does frick something up you'll know it pretty quickly if you are properly tracking your weight and performance in the gym.
why not just lean bulk? I've been on a 500 surplus for 4 months now and my fat gain has been pretty minimal. Just adjust your calory intake accordingly and you should be fine.
You'd probably frick up your hormones.
Don't know, quick cuts seems to be less damaging on your hormones than a prolonged cut.
That's because they're not effective. 2/3rds of the weight you lose in the first week is just gycogen and water. You'd have to crank out an insane amount of cardio to make a short cut lose a significant amount of fat.
So... they are ineffective that only dump water and glycogen, but somehow frick your hormones more than a prolonged cut? Not adding up.
I never said anything about hormones. But since you asked. Longer less steep cuts are generally fine for your hormones as long as you're mobilizing fat to burn in the lower bodyfat%s this becomes progressively harder. So dietary fat becomes more important to keep your hormones good. Steep cuts can spike cortisol enough to drop your test but again this goes back to fat mobilization and dietary fat. As well as not working with volumes you can't recover from. More shallow cuts make cortisol manageable and allow you do cardio and have adequate nutrition while being hypocaloric. You can put them together and lot of people do as contest prep. Shallow cut until you're to that last 5 to 8 lbs then suicide cut until it's off. The difficulty of cutting has more to do with the specific body fat range you're in rather than how long it is. Leaner people have more trouble mobilizing fat so it makes more sense to use it as part of larger cut than it does to use just on its own.