Which gives better results: bulk and cut, or slow and steady?
In this video, Greg Doucette explains that bulking then cutting is a waste of time because even though muscle is built faster in a surplus, all the extra muscle is lost when cutting. But in the same video, and many others, he contradicts himself by saying that you can build muscle during a cut, with a caloric deficit. So he is saying you can build muscle while cutting, but if you first bulk then cut then you lose your muscle.
I would like to know, therefore, which builds more muscle over the same timeline:
1 year bulking then 1 year of cutting, or
2 years of maintenance, or
2 years of cutting
And I'm using limited time because he says fitness is a marathon, but life is not, no one lives forever.
(1)1 Comments
Sorted by latest first Latest Oldest Best
A combination of the two will give you the best result.
Most people think of a "dirty" bulk when they hear the word bulk, in which you literally eat anything and everything. This makes you gain a lot of fat. Let's say you usually eat 2500kcal a day. In a dirty bulk you might go up to 3500 or 4000, eating literally anything to reach that number. Yes, you'll get stronger and gain muscle, but at the same time you gain a lot of fat. You then have to do a massive cut, in which you're in such a defitic that you lose all the fat, you'll also lose some of the muscles you've gained.
If you do a "clean" bulk using good foods and going up to 2800 or 3000kcal a day (from the base 2500), you will gain quality mass without gaining too much fat during the process. This way you won't need to do a drastic cut. Usually, going back to the old 2500 a day will be enough to lose most of the fat you've gained without losing muscle.
This second method is also a lot healthier which, if you're working out for health reasons, might be important to you.
Terms of Use Privacy policy Contact About Cancellation policy © freshhoot.com2025 All Rights reserved.