No matter how many different keywords i change, whenever i look into "bulk first or cut first" everyone always says to cut first because if you bulk first it will be hard to cut later. Lets say you have pretty good willpower and are not afraid of cutting at all?
I ask because at the beginning of my joruney (Nov 2020) i started lifting weights MORE (i was a newb but lifted 3 time a month and only legs because that's what most women do lol BUT NOW I HAVE A WORKOUT PROGRAM FOR FULL BODY) and i started eating in a surplus (of 350 calories). I did this for 3 months. I did look more bloated at the end of the day, but imo, my body looked better than before i started (flabby, saddlebags, etc) and now it looks more full.
I decided on bulking first because I thought as a female, I would fill out more once I cut and look better than if i started with a cut. I did a ton of crash diets in the years prior and figured my metabolism must be pretty shot... which caused weight gain in all the wrong places... well actually a lot of times my weight does go in the "right places" but i guess since i wasn't lifting, my body wasn't as tight of course so it became fatty looking..
Anyway, what gives? Is the only reason for not bulking first because you want to achieve an aesthetic body faster?
What if you don't care how fast you can look aesthetic? IF it means looking lean and muscular sooner than cutting first... then bulking second... then cutting again?
I get that it doesn't really matter since you basically end up at the same place
but another PRO of bulking first IMO is that it's easier on the skinnyfat/newbies brain. You get to have fun lifting, eating more than you already do, while losing fat and gaining muscle (only if your surplus is not high and you are eating whole foods)
yet there is probably only 2 per 100 people who would suggest that on this site.
Your insight is much appreciated, thanks!!
I ask because at the beginning of my joruney (Nov 2020) i started lifting weights MORE (i was a newb but lifted 3 time a month and only legs because that's what most women do lol BUT NOW I HAVE A WORKOUT PROGRAM FOR FULL BODY) and i started eating in a surplus (of 350 calories). I did this for 3 months. I did look more bloated at the end of the day, but imo, my body looked better than before i started (flabby, saddlebags, etc) and now it looks more full.
I decided on bulking first because I thought as a female, I would fill out more once I cut and look better than if i started with a cut. I did a ton of crash diets in the years prior and figured my metabolism must be pretty shot... which caused weight gain in all the wrong places... well actually a lot of times my weight does go in the "right places" but i guess since i wasn't lifting, my body wasn't as tight of course so it became fatty looking..
Anyway, what gives? Is the only reason for not bulking first because you want to achieve an aesthetic body faster?
What if you don't care how fast you can look aesthetic? IF it means looking lean and muscular sooner than cutting first... then bulking second... then cutting again?
I get that it doesn't really matter since you basically end up at the same place
but another PRO of bulking first IMO is that it's easier on the skinnyfat/newbies brain. You get to have fun lifting, eating more than you already do, while losing fat and gaining muscle (only if your surplus is not high and you are eating whole foods)
yet there is probably only 2 per 100 people who would suggest that on this site.
Your insight is much appreciated, thanks!!
from Bodybuilding.com Forums - Nutrition https://ift.tt/3x7f8jv
0 comments:
Post a Comment