Started by Shia, September 19, 2013 · 26 Replies · 11,675 Views
I've always been into the bodybuilding regime of bulking and cutting. But I'm sick of changing my calories and living in 'phases'. It takes the fun out of exercising!
If I was to eat my maintenance and focus on progressing in the moves, over time would my body composition change for the better?
Most definitely. Gymnasts don't bulk and cut and just see their ripped bodies. But it may take a while or two.
Bodyweight exercise that gets progressively difficult is a great method for gaining muscle while losing fat.
This is my hypothesis:
Doing an exercise (say, for example, pullups) will make you develop the necessary muscle mass to complete that movement. Your body will naturally shed fat to make the movement easier, while also making muscles bigger to make the movement easier too. A restriction is placed on muscle mass increase so that you don't get pointlessly massive muscles because they'll outweigh the benefits at some point. But you can keep getting bigger muscles if you make the exercise harder because bigger muscle mass is required to complete the movement.
It's different to bulking while lifting weights because the body has no need to shed the fat since it's not moving the body through planes of motion, only moving the weights. So a "cutting" phase becomes necessary when training with lifting weights (if you want to lose fat).
That's my theory anyway, and from what I've seen (anecdotal evidence) it holds true.
I would say it's more about the fact that you use so much of your muscle when training on rings/bars. From toe point to hollow hold, you can't brace yourself against anything or let any part of you sag.
Whatever the reason, it definitely works.
I don't see how the body would "know" that it's performing bodyweight resistance exercise, and that it would somehow decide to lose fat in order to improve. It simply reacts. What Jon says makes more sense to me. The stronger you get in gymnastic style exercise, the more muscle you are able to use all at once. The more you have to use, really, in order to get stronger still. It's the difference between a simple pushup and a hollowback press, or a plank and a planche. Greater muscle recruitment means greater energy demand which means more calories burned.
Anyway, as to the original question, it's certainly worked for others. It does take a lot of patience though. Myself and others have noticed great compostion improvements the same way in the short term, but truly dramatic changes will take years. If you take that attention you directed on dietary phases and direct it at developing your gymnastic strength from the very basics and progressively onward, you'll find yourself where you want to be in time. Assuming you eat well of course.
In short: "yes"
Gaining muscle while losing fat is actually relatively easy. Eat healthy, exercise a lot, and get a good mix of cardio and strength training. There's nothing special about bodyweight training in this regard: you can do the same thing with weights. Keep in mind, this is the slow and steady method: it may take a few years before you reach your goals, depending on how your body looks now and how you'd like it to look.
trw said:I don't see how the body would "know" that it's performing bodyweight resistance exercise, and that it would somehow decide to lose fat in order to improve. It simply reacts. What Jon says makes more sense to me. The stronger you get in gymnastic style exercise, the more muscle you are able to use all at once. The more you have to use, really, in order to get stronger still. It's the difference between a simple pushup and a hollowback press, or a plank and a planche. Greater muscle recruitment means greater energy demand which means more calories burned.
Yeah the bro science is strong with me, but personally I think it makes sense. The body is intelligent and will adapt to become more efficient at whatever it's doing; why is it so strange to think that it would make itself lighter to make calisthenics easier? The body can "know" that it's moving through space because quite frankly, when you're doing a movement such as a pullup, you can feel yourself moving through space. There's not much science (if any) to back me up but there's no science disproving me (I think).
I like your explanation too, but to everyone that doesn't agree with me, can you please explain why a lot of people training calisthenics don't have to go through a bulk/cut cycle (ie. they gain muscle mass with minimal fat gain), as opposed to those with training with weights (concerned with bodybuilding anyway). Compare the body type of the best powerlifters vs the best gymnasts.
ForzaCavaliere said:Yeah the bro science is strong with me, but personally I think it makes sense. The body is intelligent and will adapt to become more efficient at whatever it's doing; why is it so strange to think that it would make itself lighter to make calisthenics easier? The body can "know" that it's moving through space because quite frankly, when you're doing a movement such as a pullup, you can feel yourself moving through space. There's not much science (if any) to back me up but there's no science disproving me (I think).
I like your explanation too, but to everyone that doesn't agree with me, can you please explain why a lot of people training calisthenics don't have to go through a bulk/cut cycle (ie. they gain muscle mass with minimal fat gain), as opposed to those with training with weights (concerned with bodybuilding anyway). Compare the body type of the best powerlifters vs the best gymnasts.
Resistance is resistance. I can press my bodyweight in kettlebells with a good structure and a substantial amount of relaxation. Full handstand pushups on rings? Tension all the way through. Superior results are pretty much inevitable.
Edit;
Physics also plays a role. When you're training to lift one exterior load, one time, you need to be able to anchor yourself. There is a point at which more weight whether it's fat or muscle, is an advantage. This doesn't apply in the same way to what we are practising here 
ForzaCavaliere said:Yeah the bro science is strong with me, but personally I think it makes sense. The body is intelligent and will adapt to become more efficient at whatever it's doing; why is it so strange to think that it would make itself lighter to make calisthenics easier? The body can "know" that it's moving through space because quite frankly, when you're doing a movement such as a pullup, you can feel yourself moving through space. There's not much science (if any) to back me up but there's no science disproving me (I think).
I like your explanation too, but to everyone that doesn't agree with me, can you please explain why a lot of people training calisthenics don't have to go through a bulk/cut cycle (ie. they gain muscle mass with minimal fat gain), as opposed to those with training with weights (concerned with bodybuilding anyway). Compare the body type of the best powerlifters vs the best gymnasts.
Only the old school guys bulk in these days. If you are really in the science part of nutrition you will understand that its not worth it and unnecessary. You will build muscle if you push the structure to its current limits. Give it time to heal and make sure not to have any nutritional deficiency (eat quality and plenty. And use vitamins and minerals if need be. Most have to if they wand best results.)
In my mind the gymnastic way is best to this for one reason.
If you train your biceps (horrible example) alone they will not gain significant amount of muscle. If you train your legs also the hormonal boost is much bigger and you will get better results also to your biceps. In gymnastics you train your whole body the whole time so the hormonal boost is easily even more significant. This why you will get great body composition and gain lean muscle rather quickly.
ForzaCavaliere said:Yeah the bro science is strong with me (...)
LOL - commended for your lucidity! 
Yeah what Jon, trw and RiQC makes a lot more sense than what I said.
In summary of everyone's posts:
Greater muscle recruitment = more energy used = more fat burned. Also, training the whole body boosts hormonal (testosterone) levels (thanks RiQC), which will increase muscle-building capacity.
I enjoy learning more about the human body all the time, thanks guys.
As far as the bulk/cut and weightlifting goes, I'm guessing it's correlation and not causation. I don't know what bodybuilders are doing really, but anyone who is bulking and cutting is probably following a bodybuilder exercise routine, and bodybuilder routines are usually focused on weightlifting because it's the most effective means for that specific goal. People doing calisthenics or gymnastics tend to have other goals than pure hypertrophy, so you're less likely to find them bulking and cutting, especially when extra bulk makes it harder to reach those goals.
RiQC said:
If you train your biceps (horrible example) alone they will not gain significant amount of muscle. If you train your legs also the hormonal boost is much bigger and you will get better results also to your biceps. In gymnastics you train your whole body the whole time so the hormonal boost is easily even more significant. This why you will get great body composition and gain lean muscle rather quickly.
You mean the idea that heavy leg training will increase hypertrophy even in the upper body because of a systemic hormone boost, right? I've heard that this idea is actually not true. But I'm not qualified to say one way or the other. I just don't know. I'd be interested to hear about it from someone more educated on these things.
Joshua Slocum said:In short: "yes"
Gaining muscle while losing fat is actually relatively easy. Eat healthy, exercise a lot, and get a good mix of cardio and strength training. There's nothing special about bodyweight training in this regard: you can do the same thing with weights. Keep in mind, this is the slow and steady method: it may take a few years before you reach your goals, depending on how your body looks now and how you'd like it to look.
Joshua Slocum said:In short: "yes"
Gaining muscle while losing fat is actually relatively easy. Eat healthy, exercise a lot, and get a good mix of cardio and strength training. There's nothing special about bodyweight training in this regard: you can do the same thing with weights. Keep in mind, this is the slow and steady method: it may take a few years before you reach your goals, depending on how your body looks now and how you'd like it to look.
RiQC said:Only the old school guys bulk in these days. If you are really in the science part of nutrition you will understand that its not worth it and unnecessary. You will build muscle if you push the structure to its current limits. Give it time to heal and make sure not to have any nutritional deficiency (eat quality and plenty. And use vitamins and minerals if need be. Most have to if they wand best results.)
In my mind the gymnastic way is best to this for one reason.
If you train your biceps (horrible example) alone they will not gain significant amount of muscle. If you train your legs also the hormonal boost is much bigger and you will get better results also to your biceps. In gymnastics you train your whole body the whole time so the hormonal boost is easily even more significant. This why you will get great body composition and gain lean muscle rather quickly.
ForzaCavaliere said:Yeah what Jon, trw and RiQC makes a lot more sense than what I said.
In summary of everyone's posts:
Greater muscle recruitment = more energy used = more fat burned. Also, training the whole body boosts hormonal (testosterone) levels (thanks RiQC), which will increase muscle-building capacity.
I enjoy learning more about the human body all the time, thanks guys.
trw said:As far as the bulk/cut and weightlifting goes, I'm guessing it's correlation and not causation. I don't know what bodybuilders are doing really, but anyone who is bulking and cutting is probably following a bodybuilder exercise routine, and bodybuilder routines are usually focused on weightlifting because it's the most effective means for that specific goal. People doing calisthenics or gymnastics tend to have other goals than pure hypertrophy, so you're less likely to find them bulking and cutting, especially when extra bulk makes it harder to reach those goals.
You mean the idea that heavy leg training will increase hypertrophy even in the upper body because of a systemic hormone boost, right? I've heard that this idea is actually not true. But I'm not qualified to say one way or the other. I just don't know. I'd be interested to hear about it from someone more educated on these things.
So can I be more specific and ask you guys:
I'm 5'10 about 187lb at about 20-22%bf. I want to lean out but continue getting stronger. Should I eat maintenance/just below? I'm gonna start incorporating cardio in my regime too starting tomorrow.
Shia said:So can I be more specific and ask you guys:
I'm 5'10 about 187lb at about 20-22%bf. I want to lean out but continue getting stronger. Should I eat maintenance/just below? I'm gonna start incorporating cardio in my regime too starting tomorrow.
Don't worry about counting calories. It's a huge PITA and not terribly useful. Spend your efforts on improving the composition of your diet. Get lots of vegetables, cut out bad sugars and bad fats, etc.
Body composition is all about calories in vs calories burned and your protein intake. But where you get those calories/macronutrients, and whether you get the correct micronutrients or not, will affect your athletic performance = bad workouts = less progress = less muscle gained.
Jono said:Body composition is all about calories in vs calories burned and your protein intake. But where you get those calories/macronutrients, and whether you get the correct micronutrients or not, will affect your athletic performance = bad workouts = less progress = less muscle gained.
I have to dissagree to this. If you dont know that calories mesure. Go to check wikipedia. If calories had something to do with metabolism youd had to be seam engine on something similar but what Jono said about macronutrients is completely true.
More muscle increases metabolism. No human can burn their fat away. The secret to gain leaner body is to get more muscle and tell your body that it is ok to boost it's metabolism. And let that garbage out.
This means that when you get quality real foods in to your system, it will automaticly start to change the composition. When quality fats goes in the systen it can bring "rancid" (not quality) fat particles out off the body. This also brings out pestasites and other particles that dont belong to the human body that are storaget to fat cells to protect the body from teir toxisity.
You will need lots of quality protein. This is essential to get protein syntesis.
You will need good quality fats to repair yoour cells.
You will need lotscand lots of goods veggies. This brings your toxin levels down and gives you essential vitamins.
That is really everything that a human needs to eat. If that is not enough to fuel your body, then you need good quality carbs to maintain your recovery and good energy levels. This is totally up to your unique body type and sitsuation.
Like the work that you do with your exercise. Consistency is the key. In 2 years 98% of your bpdy has been regenerate and the cells are new!!
So think about what a good program like the foundation (or the whole university) and good quality food will do to you in two years!!!
P.S. Sorry that i dident bother to check the spelling for this post. Propably alot of mistakes in this.
RiQC said:(...) Propably alot of mistakes in this.
Mammamia! I think spelling is the least of your worries RIQC!
Spending some time in the nutrition forum and reading Joshua Naterman's posts will be a good start for you.
FredInChina said:Mammamia! I think spelling is the least of your worries RIQC!
Spending some time in the nutrition forum and reading Joshua Naterman's posts will be a good start for you.
Yes I have read alot about it. Where do you think that i go wrong?
In what a person shoud eat? Dont think so. When you eat with balance and things that are real you will get results. Ofcourse the macronutrients cout matters but it´s best to just start eating the real stuff. Do atlest couple of good eating habits before you start to go hifi.
And FredInChina if you did ment the calorie part that is just stupid. People still think in 2013 that human body burns energy like flame? Educate yourself Not trying to be rude cause you are the funniest guy in this forum but really?
Not saying that I know everithing of course but I really know what I am doing in this part of things. I allready have a customer that has lost over 100 kg. He started from 180 kg. And i have coached several amateur and pro MMA fighters to get their bodyfat to 5-8% range. I still do alot of this to average Joes but just cause i know i can help people who need it. My thing is the fighters.
Best resource in the net if i have to pick one shoud be precision nutrition! Yes Joshua is THE MAN. And the main man here, but he is quite extreme sometimes to people who is starting their journey in smart eating habits.
RiQC said:(...) Educate yourself (...)
OK, thank you, I'll do that: Looking up "pestasites" on wikipedia...
Hi RiQC,
I found your post interesting, especially as yesterday I read somewhere that we live in symbiosis with our gut bacteria and that nerves in our muscles affect how we feel etc.
What would you say are good fats? I have assumed that bad fats are those around meat.
FredInChina said:OK, thank you, I'll do that: Looking up "pestasites" on wikipedia...
LOL
Ok. I ment pesticides now that I did check how to spell it. And by that I ment that human body store all kind of stuff in the fat cells that dont belong in there. Like xenoestrogens.
LateStarter@46 said:Hi RiQC,
I found your post interesting, especially as yesterday I read somewhere that we live in symbiosis with our gut bacteria and that nerves in our muscles affect how we feel etc.
What would you say are good fats? I have assumed that bad fats are those around meat.
Hi LateStarter@46. Thanks for seeing behind my grammar 
I woud not say that animal fats are the bad ones. The bad ones are the ones that are not in their normal state. Like margarine. The prosessing is awful to fats. Human body dont know what to do to those fats.
Animal fat can be really bad. It depends what the animal eats. If it eats its natural food the fats are still good for you.
Good fats can be found in nuts and seeds and for example olive oil and avocado are great. Just make shure that the product of your choise is cold pressed (is that the right english term).
You want to have good oil foundation. The net site Oil the machine has good points in it. Tough i dont agree on everyhting
Thanks
I won't mention that part of my job is being a proof reader 
LateStarter@46 said:Hi RiQC,
What would you say are good fats? I have assumed that bad fats are those around meat.
Animal fat is not bad in and of itself, but what the animal eats will make a difference. Grass-fed animal fat has a very different fatty acid composition than grain-fed, for example. At home, I eat very fatty grass-fed meat. However, when I eat out (and don't know where the meat comes from), I eat the leanest meat possible (e.g. filet, skinless chicken, etc).
Some good fats that I stick to are:
Animal fat (ideally from grass-fed ruminants)
Butter (ideally from grass-fed cows, KerryGold is a popular brand)
Avocado
Coconut (milk, oil, etc)
Nuts (in moderation)
Olive oil (but for cold uses only, not for cooking)
Ghee
Full-fat dairy (again, ideally grass-fed, raw is good as well)
Eggs, meat, seafood in general, but favor free-range/pastured, grass-fed and wild, respectively.
Fats to avoid (man-made & highly processed):
margarine
hydrogenated oils
trans-fat
canola oil
corn oil
vegetable oil
soybean oil
grapeseed oil
sunflower oil
safflower oil
I'm sure I'm missing some.
Good fats would be from oily fish. Except not the grain fed ones, because that's just monstrous.