I've voiced this elsewhere but I have yet to really get a satisfactory answer, but i'm a little fuzzy on how exactly one should transition from cut to bulk or bulk to cut.
I've seen a ton of people come out and say that after a cut, you should maintain for like 2 months in order to prevent putting all that fat back on right away, because your body likes to remain at a certain set point.
I acknowledge that that would probably certainly happen if you did go straight from a cut to a bulk, so maintaining SOUNDS logical. However, what if instead of maintaining you took those 2 months and continued cutting? Just from my limited experience it sounds like you'd be able to lose more fat in those 2 months than you'd put back on immediately. Yes, you'd see a good portion of your gains dissapear, but it'd still be better than maintaining.
For instance, say Joe and Bob are both 200lbs and got to a point where they want to start bulking in 2 months. Joe continues to cut for those months and loses 15 pounds of fat more, while Bob just maintains. When Joe starts to bulk, he immediately gains 10lbs of fat back, while Bob doesn't gain fat back at all because he was maintaining. Joe is still ahead because of his cut.
Obviously, if in most people's experiences the amount of immediate fat gain is bigger than what has been lost (i.e. Joe gains back 20lbs of fat), but it just doesn't seem to me like that would be the case (again though, I have limited experience).
I'm actually thinking more about the reverse of this since I migth be approaching this soon - going from bulk to cut, where cutting immediately might make you lose muscle, but it also seems like you could've gained more muscle than you'd lose by doing a quick switch.
Anyone have any thoughts?