So this question is a bit different from what has been asked regarding recomposition. We all know that on a recomp, muscle gain is slower as well as fat loss compared to a bulk or cut alone. When you compare a recomp to a bulk, it seems as if recomping is miles behind, allowing you to make gains at say....half the rate. But I've never seen people ALSO taking into account the time they have to spend cutting. Does the time spent cutting after a bulk account for the few pounds you're short by doing a recomp vs. A bulk alone? You bulk 3 months AND cut 3 months, that's 6 months. Not only that but you may also lose a bit of muscle even on a slow cut so that further negates the bulk to an extent. After all is said and done, would 6 months of recomping (under perfect conditions), equalize with 6 months of bulking AND cutting?
Currently recomping now and while I know muscle gain is slower, I also know that I'm not going to have to spend time cutting either. It's as if gaining 10lbs of muscle and losing 10lbs of fat is like gaining 20lbs of muscle visually speaking.
Currently recomping now and while I know muscle gain is slower, I also know that I'm not going to have to spend time cutting either. It's as if gaining 10lbs of muscle and losing 10lbs of fat is like gaining 20lbs of muscle visually speaking.
from Bodybuilding.com Forums - Nutrition https://ift.tt/39MTOGG
0 comments:
Post a Comment