The Mythical "Recomp"

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

So is that the only variable for determining a minimum? Or is there any reason longer cuts followed by longer bulks are more effective than shorter cycling periods that are long enough to still get reliable data/

Is what the only variable determining a minimal what?

If you’re asking if the size of the calorie change determines the minimum useful length of the diet intervention then the answer is no.

Can anyone who is training properly and eating right skew the fat loss to >50% and fat gain to <50%? What variables can we manipulate to help skew further on a cut and bulk (i.e. ignoring age, genetics, etc)? I think the OP was interested in whether length of cut/bulk cycle was a relevant variable.

The fat loss or fat gain is usually not 50% of mass lost or gained, Though the ratio cannot “ignore” genetics, age, training history, “supplements”, size of surplus or deficit, diet composition, training...

Yea- the OP is asking an unanswerable question.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Why do you say that? It sounds appealing to me, because dieting for four days in a row and then getting to eat at a surplus again wouldn't suck as much as dieting for four weeks (or four months) straight - provided that it gives the same results over the same time frame.

Yea but it doesn’t, Tim.

I think the reason people want to know whether it works just as well is precisely because it sounds less arduous than traditional cutting/bulking and they would in fact be willing to do it if it works.

Yea but it doesn’t, Tim.

The other supposed advantage would be limiting how fat you need to get since instead of a long bulking phase where BF% gets significantly higher before bringing it down again with a cut, you are gaining and losing small amounts at a time without ever accumulating very much overall.

Yep, except that’s not how that works either Tim. You’d of course know this already by trying it.....

Are you familiar with the MATADOR study? This thread made me think of it. Intermittent energy restriction improves weight loss efficiency in obese men: the MATADOR study | International Journal of Obesity I wonder what would happen with a similar protocol using trained subjects and replacing the maintenance phase with a surplus phase.

Very familiar. I would encourage you to read it very closely and look at the raw data.

[RickBarker]

Yea but it doesn’t, Tim.



Yea but it doesn’t, Tim.




Yep, except that’s not how that works either Tim. You’d of course know this already by trying it.....

This is exactly my question. Why doesn't it work? I believe you that it doesn't work; I have tried it, and it didn't work. I realize that pragmatically, the question is answered with, "it doesn't work," but I am curious what makes it NOT work. If it's measurement error, something inherent in human physiology/metabolism, etc... If that's not a question you're interested in, or if that's still a poor question, that's fine, but I just wanted to be sure I was making myself clear.

[Chris McBride]

So you're saying daily calorie cycling (1 day bulk/1 day cut) doesn't work. You also said 4 day cycling doesn't work. But above you said 6 day bulk and 4 day cut would? I'm thinking the context of the question was different and I'm probably missing something in the post/response/quote bonanza. Either way, I think these answers are progress towards what most of us seem to be asking.

Since you don't want another hypothetical or theoretical question, I'll just use my numbers. I'm 31, 6'3" and 231 lbs at (very roughly) 18% bf with a 37/38 inch waist. I plan on competing in the 110 kg weight class for a while, and would like to end up somewhere around 240 lbs. at/under 15% bf and bring my waist measurement back down a couple inches.

I think we've agreed that I could do this by bulking and cutting in cycles lasting 4-8 weeks and making improvements with each cycle. I think we've also agreed that I could not do this by cycling my calories daily (but I don't know why).

I'm not really concerned with how long it takes, how much of a surplus/deficit I have to eat, and my goal isn't really so much an end point as a stop along the way to continued increase in lean mass and decrease in fat mass. So what is the cost/benefit of longer bulking/cutting cycles as opposed to shorter? And how short could my cycles be to make measurable progress towards my goal? What's the limiting factor preventing shorter cycles?

If we're concerned about the definition of measurable, let's assume I'm using a scale that rounds to .1 lbs., a standard cloth tape measure and a cheap bio-electrical impedance thing.

Lastly, congratulations on your performance at Nationals. Always fun to watch very strong people lifting heavy stuff.

[Establishing Strength]

Doing "what" in real life, Alchemist?

Daily calorie cycling does not work, really, for this purpose.

1) Works and is probably my preferred method when life doesn't get in the way of training and training is important to the individual.

2) Doesn't work

3) Doesn't work any better than #1, in general. Maybe worse overall.

So calorie cycling doesn't work for recomping? "Hypothetically" speaking, let's say we have an individual that is a healthy and just wants to look a bit better in his baby GAP t-shirt. He's a trained male at 16-20% bodyfat @ 210 lbs trying to lose maybe 5-10 lbs in 5-10 weeks lets say. His macros consisting of 1-1.2g P/lbs body weight and the rest are distributed amongst fats and carbs. The carbs and fats are fluctuated on training/non-training days.

For instance, to maintain weight they need to consume 3100 calories/day = 21,700 calories/wk.

Trying to lose 1 lbs/week (21700-3500=18200/wk)

Version 1: 2600 cals/day

Version 2: 3000 calories MWF (training days), 2300 calories the remaining 4 days (9000 + (2300x4) =18,200 calories = 1lbs fat loss per week).

The research says version 2 wouldn't cause any additional muscle to be gained? Why not? Is it because the net calories at the end of the week is still at a catbolic level so any "anabolic process" would be short lived? Or would no anabolic process take place? Genuinely confused. But does it work better or at least as well for maintaining muscle mass than classic daily calorie restrictions straight across? Does it matter all that much if it's easily adhered to by the individual (the extra calories on training days just come from eating breakfast because they train in the morning. They just skip breakfast on off days so they can still eat big dinners).

And again, I can't stress enough how "hypothetical" this is ...

#askingforafriend

[tfranc]

Yea- the OP is asking an unanswerable question.

Perhaps a better way to pose the question:

Can a person achieve the same results in muscle building by alternating days of caloric surplus and deficit (ie: surplus Monday, deficit Tuesday, surplus Wednesday) as they can by bunching up all the bulking days together, followed by all the cutting days, aka, what would be a typical bulk/cut cycle? I’m guessing the duration of time either of these are done for is an important variable, but how about just in general?

My gut says not the alternating method.

[Tim K]

So, instead of talking in circles around people and avoiding their actual questions, maybe you could just say "yeah it doesn't work like that" and if you're feeling generous give a brief explanation of why it doesn't work like that. I'm not sure what's up with the repetition of my name, seems like you're just being deliberately condescending.

I've read it as closely as my non-science background would allow, so I'm sure I'm just missing something, but your response does not give me any inkling of what that might be.

[whale]

How long will his training blocks be? How many reps should he do? How much cardio should he do?

I would move to 4's, then to 3's, 2's and singles. When singles become stressful do them once a week. No cardio.

I am not a doctor so don't take my advice.

[George Christiansen]

Let me fire a question back at you in hopes that this sheds more light on this.

Assume a trainee wants to get as strong as possible and jacked too (I think most do).

How long will his training blocks be? How many reps should he do? How much cardio should he do?

It depends and is rather nuanced.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

This is exactly my question. Why doesn't it work?

Multiple reasons, really. The main thing is you're not able to separate noise from the signal with regards to meaningful changes with respect to lean body mass gain and fat mass loss, respectively. Additionally, there's some sort of body inertia where things work a little better when you do them for a period of time- not too short or not too long. I think this probably has more to do with the hormonal milieu and cumulative effects of the intervention.

So you're saying daily calorie cycling (1 day bulk/1 day cut) doesn't work. You also said 4 day cycling doesn't work. But above you said 6 day bulk and 4 day cut would?

Basically, thinks change over the course of week or two and you can use that data to alter the intervention. After 10-14 days, you may know whether you're actually losing body fat or gaining LBM with some reasonable certainty. It doesn't mean you should microcycle like that, but rather what you're looking at outcome wise is actually meaningful.

Since you don't want another hypothetical or theoretical question, I'll just use my numbers. I'm 31, 6'3" and 231 lbs at (very roughly) 18% bf with a 37/38 inch waist. I plan on competing in the 110 kg weight class for a while, and would like to end up somewhere around 240 lbs. at/under 15% bf and bring my waist measurement back down a couple inches.

I think we've agreed that I could do this by bulking and cutting in cycles lasting 4-8 weeks and making improvements with each cycle. I think we've also agreed that I could not do this by cycling my calories daily (but I don't know why).

Mainly because there's no need to micromanage your diet unless it drastically improves compliance, otherwise there's no difference.

Filling out the 110 class while lowering your body fat to a DEXA-verified 15% is a few years away without "supplements".

I think the length of your cycles should be based on your objective results, competition schedule, and training.

Lastly, congratulations on your performance at Nationals. Always fun to watch very strong people lifting heavy stuff.

Thank you!

So calorie cycling doesn't work for recomping?

Define "Recomp". If you mean lose fat and gain muscle, then yea- it won't work. If you mean losing body fat- then sure. You can achieve a net calorie deficit over a week interval with some days being higher than other days calorie wise provided the calorie deficit is sufficient within the time interval to produce weight loss. This definitely depends on the individual.

Perhaps a better way to pose the question:

Can a person achieve the same results in muscle building by alternating days of caloric surplus and deficit (ie: surplus Monday, deficit Tuesday, surplus Wednesday) as they can by bunching up all the bulking days together, followed by all the cutting days, aka, what would be a typical bulk/cut cycle?

No.

I would move to 4's, then to 3's, 2's and singles. When singles become stressful do them once a week. No cardio.

I am not a doctor so don't take my advice.

Ha! I would not recommend that type of training progression.

So, instead of talking in circles around people and avoiding their actual questions

I was trying to encourage the folks posing the questions to think about them a little harder. Everyone learns when we think, ya know?

Did you look at the raw data with all the numbers of the subjects?

It depends and is rather nuanced.

Correct.