So... once you hit your weight loss goals, if you start building, a little bit if fat will also be put on... in which sooner or later you'll have to diet to shed it off, starting the cycle all over again. So I'm just wondering, the folks that are crazy ripped... big yet crazy lean, exactly what determines how much or how long they build before they diet, and how far or long does the diet last? There's got to be some kind of halfway standard practice for this.

Well, I wouldn't label myself "big, yet crazy lean." However, I can explain my thoughts on the subject.

We all gain and lose weight in different ratios. I mean, some gain a lot of muscle and a little fat. These people, when dieting, will be the ones who also lose a lot of fat and maintain a lot of muscle. And then you have the flip-side to that.

Research P-ratio.

That said, there is no blanket way of going about the overall process. It is a touch and feel practice.

Personally, I bulk until I reach an uncomfortably "soft" look. This obviously is personal to my idea of what "too soft" looks like. I start with a weight goal. I learned my body well enough that this previous bulk I know that once I got over 200, I would be looking rather soft. I was right. I hit 205 and my abs were barely noticeable.

At that time, which was only this past Monday, I made the necessary adjustments to start shedding the newly formed fat, while maintaining as much of my newly formed muscle as possible.

So you see, it's always a 2 step forward and 1 step backwards approach. Slow and steady.

How do you know when to take off and build again? Is it just all based on looking in the mirror? How long is a typical diet session in this situation? Can you cut the build and diet times in half and not get as drastic of a change? I mean, could you have caught yourself at 200 pounds but then dieted for half as long, and keep your abs showing and keep the bodyweight down to a minimum? Is there a minimum time that it takes for building? I mean, does build times have to span over a few months, or can it be smaller cycles such as a couple of weeks?

That might be a record for most questions ever asked in one post.

I go by looks yes. There is no set standard. I know some people that go strictly by weight. But I don't like that. I set a general weight goal, but if I get to soft before that, I will cut the bulk short. Or, if I reach that point and am still looking lean, I would extend it.

For me, mainly. It makes the most sense IMO.

This varies from person to person. As I said before, none of us lose and gain weight at the same rate. For me, I tend to shed fat rather easily. The ratio is usually roughly 2:1, so I diet half as long as I bulk. Personally, I've found 4 months of bulking and 2 months of cutting to be my sweet spot, but this is certainly not written in stone.

It seems like you are working under the assumption that there is a set way of doing this. There isn't. The basic laws of energy balance apply. Eat over what your body needs and you will grow. Eat under and you will shrink. Grow to a point where you are comfortable with, then shrink to lose the fat that accompanied the new growth. Easy as that.

Some people like the slow approach, trying to stay very lean year round. I used to do that but found that my muscle growth was too slow for my liking. Now I bulk using large chunges of time... 4+ months. It feels like I can build momentum doing this.

I have seen people bulk for a month, cut the next. I have seen people bulk for 3 weeks and cut for 1. I have even seen people eat surplus for 3 days and deficit for 1.

Personally, the shorter of a time ratio you use, I think the less muscle mass you grow on a time weighted basis. But you probably would stay leaner for longer periods of time too since you are never extending your body into long time continuums of over-feeding.

Follow me?

No. Some people grow like weeds, others like bricks. I am in the middle of that someplace.

It's simply up to you - there is not a hard and fast rule.

Again, there is not a hard and fast rule ...you can go on subjective criteria like how you think you look in the mirror or something more objective like a body fat % calcuation or fat scale read-out. And even if the body fat % you use is inaccurate by 4% +/- compared to a more reliable assessment ( i.e a hydrostatic test ) it is the change over time between your body fat calcs ( be they accurate or not ) that is more important. Or, another objective criteria is body measurements. Some guys will train hard to add enough mass so they can meausure it with a tape - i.e adding an 1 inch +/- to your chest, upper thigh measurement etc.

Depends on what your " fat loss " goals in terms of how much and how soon. And, it also depends on the frequency, duration and intensity of any exercise that may or may not accompany any diet adjustments you undertake to reach those goals. There is not a hard and fast rule.

The less effort you do of anything - be it creating a calories deficit or training - will yield ' lesser ' results commensurate with that lesser effort. But there is usually a limit as to how much mass you can reasonably expect to pack on in a month - ditto for fat loss, the rate of fat loss is tempered by efforts to sustain muscle mass while you drop the fat.



Not sure what you're getting at - you can be 200 lbs at 8% body fat and 200 lbs at 28 % body fat. But,whatever fat you inevitably would have gained reaching 225 lbs would take longer to lose than whatever fat you inevitably would have gained reaching 200 lbs..but, that is just common sense.


Again, depends on what your goals are and whether you are a beginner or not ( as they tend to put on mass at a quicker rate than seasoned lifters ). Obviously it also depends if your goal is to add 5 lbs of mass or 25 lbs of mass. And within that goal, it depends on how intense you train, how often you train, how many calories you take in, etc. etc. etc.

this isnt just a personal belief of steve, this is something that has some scientific merit to it. and something i have experienced time and again myself.

while i would never tell anyone to do the exact same thing every workout, studies have shown that a person really needs to keep focus on one particular benefit for an "extended" amount of time. meaning, if you were looking to bulk, you would want to focus on hypertrophy and the nutrition that goes with it. i believe the recommendation was a minimum of 4-6 weeks towards your goal to give your body a chance to make changes in the direction you wanted. its kind of like the opposite of diminishing returns in economics, lol.

in other words, if you are switching back and forth between bulking and cutting every other week, youre probably going to get more of a maintenance effect. if you want to build muscle, be prepared to accept a little bit of fat gain and the work to come to reduce it. if that doesnt sound appealing to you, just stay at maintenance. you can always build strength without a calorie surplus, since strength and muscle mass are not in a 1:1 direct relation.

if youre looking to be a competitve bodybuilder, then obviously your competition dictates when you bulk and when you cut. but if competition isnt your thing, ive seen some very successful people do it based on seasons. start bulking as the weather gets colder, say mid fall or so, bulk through till mid to late winter, then cut to be ready for warm weather. once optimal bodyfat was reached, they would maintain (or the really smart ones would go into a strength phase for preparation of the next bulk) until mid fall rolled around again. this method is built on the premise that you want to look best when it is warm enough to show it, lol.

i would also certainly suggest that you avoid always being in either a cut or bulk, and try to have periods of "rest" at just maintenance calories. even though you might be in good shape overall, that constant yo-yoing can still take its toll. this is, however, an anecdotal suggestion, so take it as you may.

I was specifically talking about Steve's example. He said he hit 205, then he was like whooops, time to back pedal and diet because you can't hardly see the abs. So basically I was wondering if in that situation if it's acceptable if he could have stopped at 200 pounds then dieted for a shorter period of time before building again. I didn't know if doing this vs. longer term building and dieting if it would produce the same results.

Basically I'm asking all this because I really don't want to pack much fat on at all since I just busted my ass all winter losing it all. I think I'd rather have smaller size gains before I got too much fat back on but I don't know where exactly the magic number is, I don't know what the minimum amount of time or whatever could be and still actually have gains.

Isn't this pretty much what I said, to a T?

Simply start eating 10-15% above maintenance. It is stupid to try and lock in on a "magic" number for you. Again, it is all touch and feel. Simply create a small caloric surplus and work with that. Track measurements. Simple as that.

Agreed .....there seem to be many similarities...I should have taken some more time to read your post carefully.