Building High-Performance Muscle™
Bodybuilding
 
At what % fat do you cut
 

Professor X
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 51898

Mtag666 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Mtag666 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
timmcbride00 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Really?

Johnny Jackson.


That's an awesome picture.

I'm definitely no Johnny Jackson. Just sayin' what works for me. However, in full disclosure, I have never had a bulk where I got that huge so I can't say it doesn't work.

I'm just personally scared to try it. : )

I don't mind getting a little soft, but I have my limits.


Great response...because it would seem that most of the people that do speak out against it have never come close to being that size either.

I have my limits too, but there is no way Johhny is "too fat" in that picture. He was working on all out strength and size...exactly what many here should be if their goal is to be really big in the end.


Surely you can agree cutting for a natural is completely different than cutting with copious PED use. So using johnny jackson might be a valid point on bulking up that fat for guys using, but it's a completely different game for natty's.



There are thousands of people who use steroids who dont look like they lift. Steroids do not guarantee some certain response because genetics are still at the base of what is seen from effort.

No one should be basing their actions on what they think is SUPPOSED to happen.

If you see that condition as being a "fat guy" then we disagree on the concept.


No when I look at him I agree I just see a big ass guy just like you. But we just disagree on the benefit of bulking that much as a natural.



Natural or assisted has nothing to do with it. You base your actions on the results you get DUE TO YOUR OWN GENETICS.

That is why your statement is incorrect. Someone using steroids does not guarantee some certain response to them...so NO, you do not base your actions on whether someone is natural alone or not.


Steroids have nothing to do with this discussion and I am not sure why you brought that up.

  Report
 

J. Prufrock
Level

Join date: Mar 2012
Location:
Posts: 512

Just going around telling people their views are incorrect doesn't make it so.

  Report
 

Mtag666
Level 1

Join date: Apr 2012
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 247

Professor X wrote:
Mtag666 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Mtag666 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
timmcbride00 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Really?

Johnny Jackson.


That's an awesome picture.

I'm definitely no Johnny Jackson. Just sayin' what works for me. However, in full disclosure, I have never had a bulk where I got that huge so I can't say it doesn't work.

I'm just personally scared to try it. : )

I don't mind getting a little soft, but I have my limits.


Great response...because it would seem that most of the people that do speak out against it have never come close to being that size either.

I have my limits too, but there is no way Johhny is "too fat" in that picture. He was working on all out strength and size...exactly what many here should be if their goal is to be really big in the end.


Surely you can agree cutting for a natural is completely different than cutting with copious PED use. So using johnny jackson might be a valid point on bulking up that fat for guys using, but it's a completely different game for natty's.



There are thousands of people who use steroids who dont look like they lift. Steroids do not guarantee some certain response because genetics are still at the base of what is seen from effort.

No one should be basing their actions on what they think is SUPPOSED to happen.

If you see that condition as being a "fat guy" then we disagree on the concept.


No when I look at him I agree I just see a big ass guy just like you. But we just disagree on the benefit of bulking that much as a natural.



Natural or assisted has nothing to do with it. You base your actions on the results you get DUE TO YOUR OWN GENETICS.

That is why your statement is incorrect. Someone using steroids does not guarantee some certain response to them...so NO, you do not base your actions on whether someone is natural alone or not.


Steroids have nothing to do with this discussion and I am not sure why you brought that up.


I'm saying that Clen/t3/DNP and other cutting agents make getting lean easier while preserving muscle. So someone who uses can afford to gain more fat because they can cut more drastically without worrying about any lean mass lost. I'm sure steroid guys like Walkaway could get into the specifics.

I agree that genetics play a big part in how substances affect certain individuals. But that's not what I was talking about. I'm simply saying cutting assisted is much different than cutting natural

  Report
 

Dave Rogerson
Level 3

Join date: Jul 2005
Location: England
Posts: 348

I would say that this is an individual thing, both in terms of preference and pragmatics. What I mean by this is that once you get past the point of where you are making improvements in your physique or what you are happy when you look in the mirror, then it is time to consider cutting. That's the preference, I suppose. In terms of pragmatics, I guess it is a case of knowing yourself and what it takes to reach your goals. For instance, I really struggle to lose body-fat. I have a sluggish metabolism and store a ton of fat in the lower back and love handle/flank area that detracts from the way I look, yet I can be very, very lean in my arms, legs and lower abs. It takes a lot of work and even more time for me to reduce these spots and now that I am well into my 30s, it takes even longer. So, for me, staying leaner is a given and cutting back occurs when these areas go beyond what I want them to be. I've often wondered that if I had a more even fat distribution whether things would be different or not.

That said, I know people that drop weight like you wouldn't believe. The smallest calorie reduction and they drop fat, quickly. So for these people it is less of an issue. Although I cannot relate to them being so different from them, I would imagine that they have more leeway than I to gain and in order to reach their deadline (if they have one). I trained in a gym years ago where one person could go from being pretty soft looking to stage ready easily within 10 - 12 weeks, and that was without excessive restriction.

I hated that guy.

  Report
 

timmcbride00
Level

Join date: Jun 2008
Location:
Posts: 1085

Professor X wrote:
Great response...because it would seem that most of the people that do speak out against it have never come close to being that size either.

I have my limits too, but there is no way Johhny is "too fat" in that picture. He was working on all out strength and size...exactly what many here should be if their goal is to be really big in the end.


I agree that he is not "too fat". He has an amazing amount of muscle and carries the fat very well.

If I were at a similar bodyfat percentage as Johnny Jackson, I would look much worse because I am so much smaller.

I definitely feel that your current size comes into play in terms of how much fat you can hold well.

  Report
 

audiogarden1
Level

Join date: Sep 2009
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 2861

Who would have thought that PX wouldve come into this thread for the sole reason of degenerating it into more bullshit....

  Report
 

J. Prufrock
Level

Join date: Mar 2012
Location:
Posts: 512

Really, though, I think that the idea that some have come up with of not letting your bf % exceed your arm circumference is pretty reasonable. Obviously, this doesn't ring as true the more muscle someone is carrying. Like, if someone has 18-20in arms, it's not all that much of a loss if they have 18-20% bf.

  Report