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

[p74]

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 ?

[tarmyg]

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

[Docd187123]

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%?

[--->>405<<---]

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 )

[--->>405<<---]

^^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..

[Docd187123]

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?

[tarmyg]

^^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

[Docd187123]

^^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?

[--->>405<<---]

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!

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)

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

[p74]

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).

[p74]

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)

[p74]

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.

[--->>405<<---]

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.

[Docd187123]

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?

[p74]

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.

[--->>405<<---]

I'm losing weight at 3000cals/day.

why dont u just rub it in a little!

[--->>405<<---]

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.

[Docd187123]

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

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.

[p74]

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).

[Docd187123]

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.

[p74]

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 ;-)

[Docd187123]

".... 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.