Results 1 to 22 of 22
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By --->>405<<---
  • 1 Post By --->>405<<---

Thread: Interesting article re: recomposition. (Anybody actually done this ?)

  1. #1
    p74
    p74 is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    33

    Interesting article re: recomposition. (Anybody actually done this ?)

    I recently read this and it got me wondering if anybody has actually successfully done this.
    To Bulk or to Cut, That is the Question - or is it? | Wannabebig

    The author's states that rather than "traditional" bulking or cutting one should choose a target body weight and bodyfat % and eat as if you were trying to maintain that from the outset; eventually the body will "level off" (apparently).

    So if I want to change my current body composition at 182lb and 18% bf into (for arguments sake) 182lb and 10% bf; all I need to do is ensure that my macros and micros (in addition to "adequate training") are met, and eventually my body should reach that state.

    Correct ?.


    Or am I missing something ?

    Is this possible ?
    Last edited by p74; 10-22-2013 at 05:42 AM.

  2. #2
    tarmyg's Avatar
    tarmyg is online now Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,745
    Blog Entries
    162
    Seems there are many here who have done it but most will recommend a cut then bulk approach as it is easier, or at least that is what they say. I have not tried it so.

    If you can do it successfully why not, saves time!

    Thanks
    ~T


    "I stay mostly by myself, but it's OK, they know me here"
    Follow my personal story here: Anabolic Steroids - Steroid.com Forums - An honest journey - Blogs

  3. #3
    Docd187123 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,220
    What about for a new lifter who's 140lbs @ 20%? Should he right off the bat start eating macros for his goal weight of 230lbs @ 10%?

  4. #4
    --->>405<<---'s Avatar
    --->>405<<--- is offline Elite-AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    12,836
    lets see if i understand this correctly:

    hypothetically youre 182lbs 18%bf and have 149.24lbs LBM (32.76lbs FAT)and want to get to 182lbs 10% bf which is 163.8lbs LBM (18.2lbs FAT)

    this is a net gain of 14.56lbs LBM and net loss of 14.56lbs FAT..

    the author's contention is that by feeding the lean mass of the desired weight and bf% you can get there?

    lets run the numbers:

    182lbs 18%bf and 149.24lbs LBM means:
    rough maintenance = LBM x 15
    149.24 x 15 = 2238.6calories per day rough maintenance


    182lbs 10%bf and 163.8lbs LBM means:
    rough maintenance = LBM x 15
    163.8 x 15 = 2457calories per day rough maintenance

    2457(10%body fat) - 2238.6(18% body fat) = 218.4 calorie difference for maintaining weight

    so the guy who is 10%body fat requires 218.4 more calories than the guy who is 18% body fat.

    the author contends that in order to lose 15 pounds of fat and gain 15 pounds of muscle all you have to do is eat at a 218.4 calorie surplus?? i think NOT!! if only it were that easy...

    IMO there is no way in hell you are gonna lose fat eating at a surplus of calories than what ur current LBM requires. the author is incorrect IMO. (id also like to note i would even suggest he is an idiot if i were in the mood to be an asshole )
    Last edited by --->>405<<---; 10-22-2013 at 07:01 AM.

  5. #5
    --->>405<<---'s Avatar
    --->>405<<--- is offline Elite-AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    12,836
    ^^id also like to note here i actually did a re-comp. i started at 213lbs 26.6%body fat (156.34lbs LBM ; 56.65lbs FAT) and went to 190lbs 10%body fat (171lbs LBM; 19lbs fat) which is a net gain of 14.66lbs LBM and net loss of 37.65lbs FAT..

    so i know a little something about it..
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Interesting article re: recomposition. (Anybody actually done this ?)-original-2.jpg   Interesting article re: recomposition. (Anybody actually done this ?)-jan31-3.jpg   Interesting article re: recomposition. (Anybody actually done this ?)-dec-10-1.jpg  
    RaginCajun likes this.

  6. #6
    Docd187123 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by --->>405<<--- View Post
    lets see if i understand this correctly:

    hypothetically youre 182lbs 18%bf and have 149.24lbs LBM (32.76lbs FAT)and want to get to 182lbs 10% bf which is 163.8lbs LBM (18.2lbs FAT)

    this is a net gain of 14.56lbs LBM and net loss of 14.56lbs FAT..

    the author's contention is that by feeding the lean mass of the desired weight and bf% you can get there?

    lets run the numbers:

    182lbs 18%bf and 149.24lbs LBM means:
    rough maintenance = LBM x 15
    149.24 x 15 = 2238.6calories per day rough maintenance


    182lbs 10%bf and 163.8lbs LBM means:
    rough maintenance = LBM x 15
    163.8 x 15 = 2457calories per day rough maintenance

    2457(10%body fat) - 2238.6(18% body fat) = 218.4 calorie difference for maintaining weight

    so the guy who is 10%body fat requires 218.4 more calories than the guy who is 18% body fat.

    the author contends that in order to lose 15 pounds of fat and gain 15 pounds of muscle all you have to do is eat at a 218.4 calorie surplus?? i think NOT!! if only it were that easy...

    IMO there is no way in hell you are gonna lose fat eating at a surplus of calories than what ur current LBM requires. the author is incorrect IMO. (id also like to note i would even suggest he is an idiot if i were in the mood to be an asshole )
    I don't know what you're talking about but those numbers make perfect sense. Didn't you know a surplus small enough to be overshadowed by measurement error is plenty to recomp your body by 30lbs ie gain 15lbs muscle and lose 15lbs fat?

  7. #7
    tarmyg's Avatar
    tarmyg is online now Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,745
    Blog Entries
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by --->>405<<--- View Post
    ^^id also like to note here i actually did a re-comp. i started at 213lbs 26.6%body fat (156.34lbs LBM ; 56.65lbs FAT) and went to 190lbs 10%body fat (171lbs LBM; 19lbs fat) which is a net gain of 14.66lbs LBM and net loss of 37.65lbs FAT..

    so i know a little something about it..
    Did you detail in a post somewhere as it sounds like a very interesting read or do I have to go through your log to see it?

    Thanks
    ~T


    "I stay mostly by myself, but it's OK, they know me here"
    Follow my personal story here: Anabolic Steroids - Steroid.com Forums - An honest journey - Blogs

  8. #8
    Docd187123 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by --->>405<<--- View Post
    ^^id also like to note here i actually did a re-comp. i started at 213lbs 26.6%body fat (156.34lbs LBM ; 56.65lbs FAT) and went to 190lbs 10%body fat (171lbs LBM; 19lbs fat) which is a net gain of 14.66lbs LBM and net loss of 37.65lbs FAT..

    so i know a little something about it..
    Somebody does their squats ^^^. I'm an completely impressed, that's a huge transformation. How long did it take you?

  9. #9
    --->>405<<---'s Avatar
    --->>405<<--- is offline Elite-AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    12,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Docd187123 View Post
    I don't know what you're talking about but those numbers make perfect sense. Didn't you know a surplus small enough to be overshadowed by measurement error is plenty to recomp your body by 30lbs ie gain 15lbs muscle and lose 15lbs fat?
    LOL.. u learn something new everyday!
    Quote Originally Posted by tarmyg View Post
    Did you detail in a post somewhere as it sounds like a very interesting read or do I have to go through your log to see it?

    Thanks
    ~T


    "I stay mostly by myself, but it's OK, they know me here"
    Follow my personal story here: Anabolic Steroids - Steroid.com Forums - An honest journey - Blogs
    yeh its in my log. pretty much from pages 1-40 (ish)

    Quote Originally Posted by Docd187123 View Post
    Somebody does their squats ^^^. I'm an completely impressed, that's a huge transformation. How long did it take you?
    i dropped most of the fat in 6ish months.. from oct 2011-mar2012 i went from 213 27%bf to approx. 183lbs 10%bf ... to get to 190 and 10% took me from then until december of 2012.. of course my main goal had already been achieved (getting below 12%bf) and i took my time mini bulking and cutting. im pretty much stuck at 175lbs LBM (approx.) and considering my first cycle. i just havent jumped off yet. not sure if it is worth it to me to be honest. i am on TRT though..

    and yes i definitely do squats! and love them! probably my best lift. but enuff about me

  10. #10
    p74
    p74 is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Docd187123 View Post
    What about for a new lifter who's 140lbs @ 20%? Should he right off the bat start eating macros for his goal weight of 230lbs @ 10%?
    Yes.
    That seems to be what the author is suggesting.

    From what I can tell, it would take some time, but eventually you're goal will be achieved (apparently).

  11. #11
    p74
    p74 is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by --->>405<<--- View Post
    lets see if i understand this correctly:

    hypothetically youre 182lbs 18%bf and have 149.24lbs LBM (32.76lbs FAT)and want to get to 182lbs 10% bf which is 163.8lbs LBM (18.2lbs FAT)

    this is a net gain of 14.56lbs LBM and net loss of 14.56lbs FAT..
    I used myself as an example purely for the sake of example.
    - As an aside, it would be a nice way of ensuring a bf% reduction while avoiding any muscle loss (or strength).

    (I'm sure you can appreciate my interest finding out if anyone has done it this way)
    Last edited by p74; 10-22-2013 at 08:55 AM.

  12. #12
    p74
    p74 is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by --->>405<<--- View Post
    IMO there is no way in hell you are gonna lose fat eating at a surplus of calories than what ur current LBM requires. the author is incorrect IMO.
    I agree. However, taking into consideration the effects of training, would this not somewhat change things ?.

    Maybe I misunderstand, but I'm assuming that initially, the change in diet (surplus) would intially have a "fat gain effect", but providing adequate training is done (and the nutrients are provided correctly), the body will gradually change accordingly and the goal will eventually be achieved.
    Last edited by p74; 10-22-2013 at 09:03 AM.

  13. #13
    --->>405<<---'s Avatar
    --->>405<<--- is offline Elite-AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    12,836
    Quote Originally Posted by p74 View Post
    I agree. However, taking into consideration the effects of training, would this not somewhat change things ?.

    Maybe I misunderstand, but I'm assuming that initially, the change in diet (surplus) would intially have a "fat gain effect", but providing adequate training is done (and the nutrients are provided), the goal will eventually be achieved.

    a basic understanding in nutrition and math is all you need to comprehend the fact that it is not possible to lose a significant amount of fat while eating more calories than your body requires. i mean, do i really need to explain this?

    im 205lbs 13%body fat .. id like to be 225lbs 8%body fat.. (207lbs LBM)

    207 x 15 = 3105calories..

    u know what happens when i eat 3000+ calories per day?? i gain fat! i have a hard enuff time cutting to 10% body fat as it is eating a caloric deficit let alone a surplus!

    3000cals per day is 21000 cals per week.

    right now im cutting at approx 15000cals per week and still having a hell of a time getting to 10%.. you cant believe by eating another 6000calories im gonna be able to lose fat. if u do u need to spend some more time reading about nutrition.

  14. #14
    Docd187123 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by p74 View Post
    Yes.
    That seems to be what the author is suggesting.

    From what I can tell, it would take some time, but eventually you're goal will be achieved (apparently).
    So the author is suggesting someone 140lbs eat the same as someone who's 230lbs and you see nothing wrong with that? Think of how large the surplus would be in the beginning, how much excess fat that surplus would get him, and how will all that fat be burned if he never cuts and just eats at what the maintenance of someone else is? Yes the surplus will eventually shrink down and become maintenance but by that point he's accumulated so much fat bc of the excessively large surplus in the beginning and he can't drop the fat bc he can't cut according to this method.

    Let's also attack this issue from another direction, from your article:

    In short, when both men hit their target bodyweight and composition, their diets (their caloric intake, strictly speaking) will be identical in order to maintain that physique, so why not eat that diet from the outset?
    Do you see any error in the bolded quote? This is an immense assumption and one that is categorically wrong. It doesn't take into account genetic and individual differences, differences in hormonal environments, differences in metabolism, etc. 405 and I have very similar stats but for me to cut at the moment, I'm losing weight at 3000cals/day. 405 by admission would be gaining weight at that intake. Do you see how this assumption, which plays a critical role in the article's assessment, is plain wrong?

  15. #15
    p74
    p74 is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    33
    I have to admit that my basic understanding of cals in vs cals out is sound, but this whole thread and article has me confused.

    - think I'll just stick to what I know and just accept a little muscle / strength loss.

  16. #16
    --->>405<<---'s Avatar
    --->>405<<--- is offline Elite-AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    12,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Docd187123 View Post
    I'm losing weight at 3000cals/day.
    why dont u just rub it in a little!
    p74 likes this.

  17. #17
    --->>405<<---'s Avatar
    --->>405<<--- is offline Elite-AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    12,836
    Quote Originally Posted by p74 View Post
    I have to admit that my basic understanding of cals in vs cals out is sound, but this whole thread and article has me confused.

    - think I'll just stick to what I know and just accept a little muscle / strength loss.
    how bout this p74 (welcome by the way ) why dont u test the theory out and report back in 3 months.

  18. #18
    Docd187123 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by --->>405<<--- View Post
    why dont u just rub it in a little!
    Lmao, I'm truly sorry hahaha. Didn't want to run it in just providing another example for OP. Please forgive me lol

    Quote Originally Posted by --->>405<<--- View Post
    how bout this p74 (welcome by the way ) why dont u test the theory out and report back in 3 months.
    Impressed with this answer for a multitude of reasons.

  19. #19
    p74
    p74 is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by --->>405<<--- View Post
    how bout this p74 (welcome by the way ) why dont u test the theory out and report back in 3 months.
    mmmm do I have the "guts" (pun intended) too ?
    - was kinda hoping someone else had already ;-)

    Edit: Besides; 3 months wouldn't be long enough to test the theory - (giving an average of 0.5-2.5lb a month in muscle gains, it would more than likely take approx 6-29 months).
    Last edited by p74; 10-22-2013 at 10:50 AM.

  20. #20
    Docd187123 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by p74 View Post
    mmmm do I have the "guts" (pun intended) too ?
    - was kinda hoping someone else had already ;-)

    Edit: Besides; 3 months wouldn't be long enough to test the theory - (giving an average of 0.5-2.5lb a month in muscle gains, it would more than likely take approx 6-29 months).
    It won't be long enough for conclusive proof but you'll have a good idea of where its heading after 3 months.

  21. #21
    p74
    p74 is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Docd187123 View Post
    It won't be long enough for conclusive proof but you'll have a good idea of where its heading after 3 months.
    ".... where it's heading after 3 months".

    That's easy

    - to Fat City ;-)

  22. #22
    Docd187123 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by p74 View Post
    ".... where it's heading after 3 months".

    That's easy

    - to Fat City ;-)
    Then you have your answer lol. What 405 is hinting at is that many factors play a role in achieving your goals and experiment and find your own way. Don't settle for what someone tells you ask why and find it why it works or doesn't. Don't accept LOL's answers bc they sound nice or smart, accept them bc they're backed with evidence.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •