Incorporating Cardio When Bulking?

No need to worry about getting “skinny” or “bulking.” Eat smart, get plenty of protein and keep lifting with maximal effort. You can also throw in some low intensity cardio (30 min on a stationary bike) twice a week if you want. Be patient and you will see big strength gains and fat loss. Over-complicating things will hinder long term progress, which is the goal of course.

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
No need to worry about getting “skinny” or “bulking.” Eat smart, get plenty of protein and keep lifting with maximal effort. You can also throw in some low intensity cardio (30 min on a stationary bike) twice a week if you want. Be patient and you will see big strength gains and fat loss. Over-complicating things will hinder long term progress, which is the goal of course. [/quote]

I appreciate this post. Straight forward and no nonsense. Thanks for the replies!!!

I will work hard

I don’t understand why SS has been suggested. OP needs to shed some fat, meaning metabolically challenging workouts that improve ones work capacity. 3 sets of 5 ain’t that.

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
Over-complicating things will hinder long term progress, which is the goal of course. [/quote]

This. Lift, eat less, watch protein intake. Don’t overcomplicate things, it leads to inconsistency and lack of action.

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
I don’t understand why SS has been suggested. OP needs to shed some fat, meaning metabolically challenging workouts that improve ones work capacity. 3 sets of 5 ain’t that. [/quote]

Because he is a dad and has a life! He needs a simple program for strength, not a “ten workouts a week” template for professional figure competitors! Weight loss is mainly a matter of diet anyway. For christ’s sake people, get your head out of you know where and see the facts. “Metabolically challenging”… Ha! When you’re trying to get to 6% bodyfat - maybe. Clearly not necessary to reach sub 15% levels.

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
Because he is a dad and has a life![/quote]

And?

He has a ways to go to sub 15%, why not train in a way that gets him faster results? OP is out of shape. Adding a conditioning element to his training IN ADDITION TO strength would be wise, and could be squeezed into 3 workouts only 45 min/week.

Don’t post patronizing bullshit if you’re just going to put words into my mouth the whole way. Srs question, do you personally have any experience cutting?..say to sub 10 levels?

I’ve been hitting solid at 200g a day lately. Does this sound good? About 2200 cals.

My butthole is getting raw from all the shitting I’ve been doing. I got more gas than chevron.

I’ll take it.

“I’m not sure what u mean by the rest of ur post on the waist line”
You had time to over eat, find time to slim down.
Focussing on what you lift is in my opinion too early.
Post how many inches your waist is so we can know the best suggestion to help you out if that is what you are looking for, simple!
Knees, ankles, etc… were not designed for overweights, you are abusing them the price might come later. You are like someone who owns a fortune ignoring that problem.
Wish you well !

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
I agree he needs a simple program with an element strongly focusing on strength. Where the hell you got 10 workouts a week, I’m not sure. 3 workouts/week is PLENTY right now for his goals.[/quote]

I didn’t say YOU said it but I can see how you would see it this way. Apologies. Others did though.

Admittedly.

I just think that getting in better shape than he is in right now doesn’t have to be complicated. Complicated plans often lead you nowhere, especially if you ask on an internet forum. OP is already confused about things he shoudl/shouldn’t do; give him something simple to work with and he’ll make progress. Give him THE PERFECT TRANSFORMATION PLAN FOR SUPER HEROES and he’ll probably just give up. I don’t mean this as an offense; not everyone is a hardcore athlete and there’s no need for it.

[quote]Don’t post patronizing bullshit if you’re just going to put words into my mouth the whole way. Srs question, do you personally have any experience cutting?..say to sub 10 levels?
[/quote]

A) I did not say all those things just about you. You and I disagree on the whole metabolically challenging thing, that’s all. (For the record, heavy weight lifting is met. challenging)
B) to about 9%ish I guess (didn’t do it for the stage). Slimming down to sub-20 or -15 is mainly about calories, even though most people don’T like hearing it. And no, you don’T need some cool HIIT training to get down to a healthy body fat level. It helps, sure; but you might just as well eat a bit less.

Just my 2 cts. I’m out.

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
I agree he needs a simple program with an element strongly focusing on strength. Where the hell you got 10 workouts a week, I’m not sure. 3 workouts/week is PLENTY right now for his goals.[/quote]

I didn’t say YOU said it but I can see how you would see it this way. Apologies. Others did though.

Admittedly.

I just think that getting in better shape than he is in right now doesn’t have to be complicated. Complicated plans often lead you nowhere, especially if you ask on an internet forum. OP is already confused about things he shoudl/shouldn’t do; give him something simple to work with and he’ll make progress. Give him THE PERFECT TRANSFORMATION PLAN FOR SUPER HEROES and he’ll probably just give up. I don’t mean this as an offense; not everyone is a hardcore athlete and there’s no need for it.

[quote]Don’t post patronizing bullshit if you’re just going to put words into my mouth the whole way. Srs question, do you personally have any experience cutting?..say to sub 10 levels?
[/quote]

A) I did not say all those things just about you. You and I disagree on the whole metabolically challenging thing, that’s all. (For the record, heavy weight lifting is met. challenging)
B) to about 9%ish I guess (didn’t do it for the stage). Slimming down to sub-20 or -15 is mainly about calories, even though most people don’T like hearing it. And no, you don’T need some cool HIIT training to get down to a healthy body fat level. It helps, sure; but you might just as well eat a bit less.

Just my 2 cts. I’m out.[/quote]

I agree. Mainly about calories. What do you think I mean when I say metabolically challenging? I mean simply, more work then 3 sets of 5…that was my original point. SS is extremely low volume and typically endorsed for newbs with metabolism of a hummingbird on meth who try to do way too much activity to begin with. 3 sets of 5 is not going to help someone get into better shape. You don’t get to sub 15 without being in some kind of “shape.” And by shape I mean being able to handle 4 sets of 10+ reps squats with about 2 min rest between sets without getting winded.

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
You don’t get to sub 15 without being in some kind of “shape.” And by shape I mean being able to handle 4 sets of 10+ reps squats with about 2 min rest between sets without getting winded. [/quote]

Yeah i dont know, im sub 15% and can get winded from something like this .