Professor X wrote:
ryanbCXG wrote:
Kinda have to agree with Facko. Again as he said not trying to be a dick but i really dont see a lot of diff. I am not an expert or even close. But i do know that muscle gain (quality) has to be done over very long periods of time. Short bulk/cut cycles dont do much other than wheele spinning. A long slow bulk over 12 months will do much more in terms of muscle gain even gaining the same amount of weight because the weight will be of much higher quality and less likely to be fat and water.
Food for thought
I agree. Unless you are rebounding after significant weight loss, on steroids or are just starting, expecting some huge lasting muscle growth in only 3 months is pushing it. Yeah, you can make great gains in that time, but expect to lose most or all of it if you immediately start dieting at the end of 3 months.
Most of the bigger guys here got that way by being more consistent than average for more time than most people...or they simply jumped on steroids early and owe most of their initial gains to that.
For example, I would expect some serious progress on the guy who was originally 220lbs, dieted the fat off and then went back up in weight. I would not expect the same lasting progress on the guy just hitting that weight the first time in only 3 months.
