Could Bulking and Cutting Be Done the Same Week?

ucimigrate

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Hi Everyone,

1. Can anyone read and comment on this article about very low-calorie dieting (400 calories a day of either whey or sucrose) + 9 hours on the treadmill each day = 0.5 kilograms of fat loss per day?

2. What is the science of over-feeding?


When does it cease restoring lost glycogen and muscle mass and start going to more body fat?

3. Could someone combine the best of both these worlds?

a. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday - 2 hours of heavy weight training workout

20 calories per pound of body weight (33% protein, 33% carb, 33% lipid) = high protein, high lipid diet for weight gain

b. Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday, severely restrictive diet, with nearly ten hours of gentle cardio?

4. To save time, many people would say to do more intense cardio. Yes, more intensive cardio would have more benefits, but risks interference with the weight training. Any commentary?
 
PhantomReaper

PhantomReaper

Member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • RockStar
I'm sure it can Be Done...
But only effective if the person was well educated in Nutrition and Training..
No Matter what the Training is...
Food will dictate the Outcome..
My. O2.....
Z...
 
Beau

Beau

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
Candidly, I cant think of many things worse than eating sucrose alone. The article states that the participants were already obese suggesting, at least to me, that insulin resistance was an almost certainty. The last thing I would want to do would be to cause even greater inflammation by dumping in 100 grams of sugar (overloading the liver's ability to manage it and more than likely causing additional issues for the kidneys). I am all for experimenting, but if I was going to try something like this, I personally would select my calories from MCT oil, EVCO or a source of protein.
 

kira1357

Member
Awards
0
Yea those are all terrible ideas. You're overthinking it. Bulk until you can't see your abs, cut until they're clearly defined, shower and repeat. Severe calorie restrictions backfire like 90% of the time unless someone is obese like in that article or in contest prep.
 

Resolve10

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
In short this sounds like a bad idea overall, but I'll try to breakdown each specific question below to I guess help cover it all (even though the overall flow of questions seems a bit all over).

Hi Everyone,

1. Can anyone read and comment on this article about very low-calorie dieting (400 calories a day of either whey or sucrose) + 9 hours on the treadmill each day = 0.5 kilograms of fat loss per day?


I don't know why you 'd want to replicate this or try to use this study as a basis for weightloss in your overall theme of losing weight with these during part of the week and training on other parts. Just from the study itself they noticed lean mass losses (and there was no difference between the sucrose versus the protein group fwiw, although they were in a quite large caloric deficit and had high energy expenditures here).

From the study:
However, our findings indicate that under such severe energy deficit, whey protein has no detectable sparing effect on LM and, consequently, the group receiving whey protein lost the same amount of LM as the group receiving only sucrose


2. What is the science of over-feeding?

When does it cease restoring lost glycogen and muscle mass and start going to more body fat?
Maybe I'll double back to specifics if anyone really wants it, but don't really feel like having to dig for specifics on the glycogen and specifics for when more fat mass starts to accumulate (considering that is going to be variable as well, its a nuanced question and answer for both). .5-1.5% of body weight gain per month (or eating at 17 cal per pound/105-110% TDEE for a conservative approach and 19 cal per pound/115-120% TDEE for a more aggressive approach), with the lower end for those who are more advanced and higher end for those newer to training (among other variables), is more in line with the research as far as rate of gain before larger accumulations in fat mass.

Maybe slower than what you hear repeated a lot, but there is both varying philosophies on approach and probably a lot of people who aren't fully caught up in more recent research.

A couple studies for reference (with rates of gain ideas mostly from MASS/SBS if anyone wants to dig deeper):
Effect of nutritional intervention on body composition and performance in elite athletes
Effects of Different Dietary Energy Intake Following Resistance Training on Muscle Mass and Body Fat in Bodybuilders: A Pilot Study

3. Could someone combine the best of both these worlds?

a. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday - 2 hours of heavy weight training workout

20 calories per pound of body weight (33% protein, 33% carb, 33% lipid) = high protein, high lipid diet for weight gain

b. Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday, severely restrictive diet, with nearly ten hours of gentle cardio?
I feel like I shouldn't even entertain how ridiculous it would be to do ten hours of cardio per day on some low calorie days, but I'll be nice and answer this under the more acceptable assumption of doing small or no amounts of cardio on these off days, but with lowered caloric intake.

I will preface this with saying if you want to delve into more optimal ways to go about a "recomp"(which is really what I think all this is in a round about way getting at) there are ways to approach that (but it also tends to be highly contentious regardless).

It really isn't that crazy of an idea to eat more on training days and then eat less on "off" or cardio days. I tend to do a little similar (eating less on weekends) and you can probably find plenty of others who do as well. When we think of it in the bigger picture overall weekly intake will be important. That tends to be for the more typical situations of cutting and bulking though (where our results are more closely predicated on where our weekly surplus leaves us).

If we are taking this from trying to do a "best of both worlds", seemingly getting gains and losing fat at the same time, it is much less likely to be viable (depends on context and expectations though).

Probably the closest I could get for a study would be this comparison between a more traditional daily deficit and a large fasting deficit via 5:2 approach. The good news is if you seem to enjoy having some days with high intakes then using a large deficit on a couple other days per week there do not appear to be any massive downsides (and probably even less downsides the more overweight you are to start). Digging into it a bit more the continuous did tend to have slightly better results in retention of lean mass based on certain measures (which as I type this I must admit I do with the men in mind, if you are a female the study actually showed women gaining a decent bid of muscle with the continuous deficit versus the fasting method).

I think a more appropriate question in regards to finding what is best, is what do you enjoy and will stick to more? There are loads of psychological variables I think everyone ignores when it comes to this (and I don't want to delve into in just this post as it is already exhaustively long). In regards to the most direct question posed here some may prefer a more traditional daily deficit approach, while some may prefer a more abstract approach of eating lots on training days with large deficits on off days. Regardless of approach I wouldn't expect miracles with either and the results will be predicated on the long term consistency of sticking to an approach that allows you to train hard in your well planned training plan and not deviate from your dietary plans for the necessary time to reach your goals.
 

Resolve10

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Candidly, I cant think of many things worse than eating sucrose alone. The article states that the participants were already obese suggesting, at least to me, that insulin resistance was an almost certainty. The last thing I would want to do would be to cause even greater inflammation by dumping in 100 grams of sugar (overloading the liver's ability to manage it and more than likely causing additional issues for the kidneys). I am all for experimenting, but if I was going to try something like this, I personally would select my calories from MCT oil, EVCO or a source of protein.
They definitely didn't have issues with the sucrose, it is used as a calorie control versus the protein. You can't just run a study and only use protein versus a control of nothing (you need some calories from somewhere to compare against).

If you dig into the study they had improvements in pretty much all markers of health and weight loss and there were no real differences compared to the protein intake group (that amount is so small and they were doing so much exercise it probably didn't matter). Sure maybe hypothetically if someone were to replicate this they may opt for protein, but the sucrose wasn't going to crush their livers and kidneys, sugar isn't that disastrous...

This study is more like a thought experiment to determine next steps and to compare more drastic approaches versus things like more moderate approaches and various medications (which they discuss in the text).
 
Beau

Beau

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
They definitely didn't have issues with the sucrose, it is used as a calorie control versus the protein. You can't just run a study and only use protein versus a control of nothing (you need some calories from somewhere to compare against).

If you dig into the study they had improvements in pretty much all markers of health and weight loss and there were no real differences compared to the protein intake group (that amount is so small and they were doing so much exercise it probably didn't matter). Sure maybe hypothetically if someone were to replicate this they may opt for protein, but the sucrose wasn't going to crush their livers and kidneys, sugar isn't that disastrous...

This study is more like a thought experiment to determine next steps and to compare more drastic approaches versus things like more moderate approaches and various medications (which they discuss in the text).
Yes, I noticed those results. Regardless, there is no way I would ever advocate anyone doing that. Sugar is so inflammatory that I've made every effort to cut added sugar out of my diet (and have done the same thing with highly processed carbs). There are just too many studies that conclude a very strong correlation between the consumption of sugar (regardless of type) and highly processed foods, and IR, diabetes, endothelial issues, heart disease. inflammation, kidney issues, gut microbiome issues, etc.
 

Similar threads


Top