Practically every other day there is a new post asking, “I’m skinny-fat. Should I bulk or cut first.”
And of course, everyone has there own opinion, each with valid arguments. There are lots of people on both sides of the fence.
Lots of people now advise that one should first cut to around 10% or so, then bulk after that. Others say to focus on building muscle, then concentrate on the fat loss after.
However, I wonder why there are not recommendations to alternate in short cycles. That is, cut for a short time, then bulk for a short time, then repeat. This way the person would still put on some muscle, and they would also get rid of fat. Were they to cut first to 10%, this could take quite a while, and thus result in all the nasties associated with chronic dieting.
By interspersing short bulk periods, this will largely be prevented from happening. Further, the zig zag pattern would allow the person to feel like they are working on both at the same time (though they actually aren’t), and keep the training fresh, resulting in greater enthusiasm and therefore effort (and as we all know, effort is the mother of all results).
The only thing I’d wonder about is this: it is generally accepted that one should spend some time doing maintenance cals before switching from bulk to cut to get the body to “accept” the newly acquired muscle. Would this be a real issue with the above?
That is, if someone put on a few pounds of muscle over 6 weeks (or whatever), would they be in a real danger of losing it if they switched to a 6 week cut cycle (or with proper weight training for maintenance, would they likely not lose too much)?
It seems like this above approach is not utilized too much anymore. Though of course, Waterbury has released his ebook which is on a 3 week cut, 3 week bulk alternating cycle.