Cut or BUlk, 24% BF

what's up everybody, I been working out hard for about 6 months now and weight at 183 lbs. I checked with a trainer today and told me my BF% is 24!!. I can honestly say most of the fat is in my gut and oblique area. My chest and arms are great. I will post some pics later this week. My biceps are 15 inches flexed just and I am 6 feet tall, and not fat at all. My goal is to be around 180 -190 ripped at 10% BF. SHOULD I BULK OR CUT?...Thanks for your advice :wg:

More specificly with my question, Should I cut first then bulk up, or bulk up then get cut?

My personal adive would be cut down to 10-12% and do a lean bulk from there on out.

THanks Giants...cuz i've read a lot on this forum that for people who want to be an X amount of pound ripped should bulk to above the weight they desire then cut down. But others prefer to cut down then bulk up. It was good today at the gym with my nutritional adviser..I am 74% lean mass and 24% BF....any advice from the experts on this forum...thanks guys

I think its easier to do a clean bulk with less BF accumulation if you start leaner. If you bulk at high BF you will be more likely to put on more fat than muscle.

thanks giant..much appreciated

I agree with what Giantz said, def cut the bf down then think about bulking up.

-SHRED

if you are "not fat a all" then you cant have 24% bf. With what method did you get bf% tested? If it was one of those impedance scales it means shit. My buddy had ripped abds, stepped on one of those and the damn thing claimed he had 22% bf.

At 24% BF, cut first for sure.

~SC~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johan

if you are "not fat a all" then you cant have 24% bf. With what method did you get bf% tested? If it was one of those impedance scales it means shit. My buddy had ripped abds, stepped on one of those and the damn thing claimed he had 22% bf.

---

Well, what do you suggest then, the "folding skin" method... The "circumference" method?

Cut then bulk bro. Best way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoDude!

Well, what do you suggest then, the "folding skin" method... The "circumference" method?

---

a simple caliper test never goes wrong imo. Might not be the most accurate but its ALOT more accurate then impedance scales and its cheap and aviable everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johan

if you are "not fat a all" then you cant have 24% bf. With what method did you get bf% tested? If it was one of those impedance scales it means shit. My buddy had ripped abds, stepped on one of those and the damn thing claimed he had 22% bf.

---

Thinking the same thing...no way is he 24% and not fat at all with good looking arms etc....i think your lower....get it tested again

yea it was at the gym...I do have " FAT" on my stomach...but when my friend got tested on it..it claimed he had 26% BF!!...and my friend had abs

Much appreciated guys for the advice....i will try to post up pics pretty soon to show you what im talking about....

johan...it was not an impedance scale...but not sure what its called....I had to lie down and they connected patches to my left foot and side stomach....

why not cut down and slowly steadily build yourself up to what you want to be, that way you can look how you want all year long and not cut then bulk then cut then bulk....no reason to if your not a competitive builder IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TRAY Z

johan...it was not an impedance scale...but not sure what its called....I had to lie down and they connected patches to my left foot and side stomach....

---

never heard of that....patches? Did it involve electricity?

check if you can get a old fashion caliper test done at your gym.

Thanks for you opinion tiger.... :wg: , Yup...Im not a competitive bodybuilder but trying to be in the best possible shape naturally.

im guessing it was a caliper,,but they placed patches first on my body and the wires were connected to an old computer..LOL..im sure i'm less than 24% BF....