Hacker News Reader

Comment by ANewFormation | Hacker News Reader

The percents are very different. For example in bodybuilding one normally 'bulks' while working out, because it maximizes muscle gain. But then naturally this needs to be paired with cutting, unless you're a Greek Grizzly, but the total muscle loss is relatively negligible, especially when maintaining a proper high protein diet.

At 40% muscle loss you're getting awful close to losing weight while increasing your body fat percent!

But of course you're right that diet+exercise is key but for those maintaining such, they wouldn't end up on these drugs to start with.

View on HN

For example in bodybuilding one normally 'bulks' while working out, because it maximizes muscle gain. But then naturally this needs to be paired with cutting

This comes from professional bodybuilding, where people are using steroids, along with various, uh, interesting chemicals on the cut[1]. It has almost no benefit to (real) natural bodybuilders. It's closely tied to cycles of steroids.

[1] Ephedrine, Albuterol, Clenbuterol (literally only approved for horses in the US), DNP, and probably more that I haven't heard of. Here's an NIH article on the dangers of DNP, to put it in perspective: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3550200/

In order to gain more muscle mass, at some point you need to be in a caloric surplus. You can't make something out of nothing - your body needs the extra resources to make itself bigger.

You do know that your metabolism can pull energy out of your fat storages, right? And that metabolism is extremely flexible and adaptable, to be sure? Your body certainly isn't pulling out a calculator every night before you go to sleep to determine whether you've eaten in excess or not for the day, and then deciding to build muscle or not based on that alone. That's ridiculously simplistic, and wrong. It's a multitude of processes working constantly, and factors like exercise, protein intake or adaptation to ketosis, just to name a few, are of the utmost importance. Some people tend to think of the human metabolism as a calorimeter, when it couldn't be farther from it.

The most important cutting aids are the same ones in bulking - AAS like testosterone and its close (cheaper) variants like trenbolone and methylated testosterone but yeah, the interesting chemicals are featured too.

Most natural bodybuilders recommend the 'clean bulk' where one simply eats the same cutting foods but in larger proportions. And also not to be too strict in general - that way lies disordered eating, binges, purges etc.

Are you claiming that a drug free person can gain as much muscle mass while in a calorie deficit as while in a calorie surplus?

If so, I would be very curious to that reference.

What an utterly ridiculous extrapolation. These comments are exhausting. Bulking and cutting have a specific meaning, and it doesn't just mean eating at a sufficient caloric surplus to sustain muscle growth. That's simply called eating enough.

I think you misread my comment.

Natural bodybuilders 100% go through bulking and cutting cycles.

Outside of noob gains it is incredibly difficult for a natural to add muscle mass when in a calorie deficit and recomposition at maintenance calories is also inefficient in the vast majority of cases.

They won't bulk the same way someone on gear does, but it's still the most efficient way to add muscle mass in the vast majority of cases.

Natural bodybuilders 100% go through bulking and cutting cycles

No, they don't. They simply eat enough to continue muscle growth and attempt to shed fat before a competition. Any non-competitor doing this is just engaging in quasi-religious nonsense or rationalizing a bad diet.

Bulking and cutting have meaning, and we're not going to turn it into any caloric surplus vs deficit.

Well, I think you should go let the whole natural bodybuilding community that they're doing it wrong, as well all of the PhDs specializing in exercise science, including both the naturals and not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCpeRdUkegE can walk you through a handful of the latest studies.

You need to be in a caloric surplus to efficiently build muscle mass regardless of whether or not you're natural. I'm honestly confused how this is even an argument we're having. No one is saying you need to eat in 5000 calorie surplus as a natural, but everyone still refers to the period where you are in a caloric surplus as a bulk and a period where you are in a caloric deficit as a cut. This is not and has never been restricted to people on gear.

Jeff Nippard is a YouTuber, natural body building pro and record holder, and he takes about his bulk/cut cycle a lot. I don't know how you can so confidently say "No they don't" when it's literally impossible for you to make such a blanket statement.

I don't even have a dog in this fight, but if someone cited a YouTuber—particularly as their first qualifying attribute—as an authoritative source, I'd just laugh.

While some YouTubers may be correct about the things they talk about, or may even be doctors or researchers, I think we're in a pretty sus world if disputes about factual or even anecdotal information can come down to whether someone's watching and getting recommended the same content on a video site designed to exploit chronic viewing habits.

If your crowd does differently, just cite that, if they don't, speak from a place of speculation if that's what you'd like like them to do, because that's basically what watching YouTube does for a person.

I wouldn't cite him as a YouTuber first, but Jeff Nippard is a a reputable source. He's competed and won in natural bodybuilding competitions, set powerlifting records for his province, partnered with PhDs in the field for studies on hypertrophy (and is one of the people leading the charge on 'lengthened partials' as being one of the most efficient ways to build muscle, which the research does agree with.)

But yes, he is also popular on youtube.

He seems like a reputable guy, and everything you mentioned is all probably best case scenario for someone who's not in a regulated profession or who's job it is to produce credible research. I'm not disputing that or him or any of his records (though incidentally it seems like his 1st place wins were in provinces with the fewest people), and I tend to enjoy his content. He also seems to have a bachelor's in biochem, also great, I don't.

I also like a bunch of other channels and have derived what feels like good information from them, I'd recommend them on that basis to people I felt would find it useful or entertaining. Just because I wouldn't cite them as an authoritative source doesn't mean it's a strike against them, it just means I don't think it's fair to tell someone they're wrong because my favorite YouTuber, even if they seem credible, well-natured, and are worth recommending, says X.

There are plenty out there doing good by their viewers and I love that, especially Canadian ones, but it's insufficient for being hyperbolic, imo, about what's impossible to make a claim about, and I don't think arguments from apparent authority are to be encouraged anyway.

In some cases, I've checked the advice of other MD content producers against real practitioners, and they've gave me the thumbs up in terms of credibility, and that obviously changes the vibe a bit, but still I'd hesitate to go too far with that, there's a lot people will do for money and attention.

You're right. You dont have a dog in this fight.

Thank you for your contribution

Reply on news.ycombinator.com