+ 49 Scientific Proof : Lower your BF% before Cycling
You hear it over and over again in the cycle logs ”you should lower your body fat before starting this cycle.” Usually the reasoning behind this is because it will help to minimize potential sides such as gyno and high blood pressure, which is true. But let me give you another maybe even more convincing reason why you should lower your body fat as low as possible before cycling. Because you will gain more muscle. That is why we are putting these compounds into our body in the first place isn’t it? So why would you shortchange the amount of quality muscle you could gain by starting your cycle when you are too fat. Don’t be lazy and drop that body fat before you start your cycle so you can gain more mass when you are finished with it.
I am not talking broscience here. It is an actual scientific fact that has been proven that the leaner you are when you start your cycle the more muscle mass you will be able to gain. It all boils down to what is termed nutrient partitioning.
Nutrient Partitioning
Nutrient partitioning is the body’s ability to shuttle nutrients into either building lean muscle mass or storing those nutrients as fat. The beauty of this is that you can directly influence this nutrient partitioning to be geared more towards lean muscle building or fat storage based upon your current amount of body fat. This has been scientifically proven by Forbe’s Theory.
Forbe’s Theory
Forbe’s was able to prove in his research that there is a logarithmic relationship between fat gain and lean body mass gain. This showed that the extent of lean body mass gain (or loss) was dependent on the starting body fat % in humans and even in other species.
So what does this mean in layman’s terms? It means the lower your body fat is when you start your cycle, the better your muscle gains are going to be. If this isn’t reason enough to lower your body fat to an acceptable level before you cycle, then I don’t know what else I can do to convince you.
Acceptable body fat % before starting cycle
I know you are dying to know what an acceptable body fat % is. Obviously the lower the better but the anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that anything in the range of 10-15% is an acceptable level for partitioning nutrients into muscle growth preferentially over fat storage. Above 15% the opposite holds true, there will be more fat gain versus muscle growth.
Ponder this for a second. Have you ever noticed how bodybuilders and physique competitors just seem to get leaner and more muscular each year while your average gym rat pretty much seems to stay the same for the most part? Here is the reason. Every time these guys get stage ready their body fat is uber-low so that now their body is super-efficient at nutrient partitioning. Their bodies are now much more effective in using the food they eat to be directed towards muscle growth instead of being stored as fat.
Negative Partitioning Agents
Let me throw something else at you here, and that is negative partitioning agents. So let’s say your body is primed and ready to go for optimum nutrient partitioning because you have finally lowered your BF% to an acceptable level. Don’t short circuit the process by consuming negative partitioning agents. What these negative partitioning agents are is junk food. The quality of the food you eat also affects nutrient partitioning. When you are eating good clean foods like chicken, tuna, oatmeal, sweet potatoes, etc. your body is able to use these nutrients for lean mass growth. When you fill up on junk food that is processed and refined you are going to disrupt the normal metabolic processes of your body and your body will be conditioned to store more fat than creating muscle. So all food is not created equal. Eating 1000 calories of Twinkies, donuts and pizza is not the same as eating 1000 calories of chicken, tuna and oatmeal. The negative partitioning agents (junk food) will signal your body to store those nutrients into fat cells whereas the latter foods will have your body shuttling those nutrients into lean body mass.
Compounds that Improve Nutrient Partitioning
We talked about negative partitioning agents, so how about some compounds that can improve nutrient partitioning. These compounds will help increase the percentage of the nutrients and calories that go into muscle building instead of fat storage. Obviously one of the ways that AAS impart their effects is through improved nutrient partitioning but here is a list of other compounds that have been reported to improve nutrient partitioning as well (just don't expect them to be on the same level as AAS):
- Fish oil - be sure to be taking your Omegas
- Ephedrine
- BCAA's (L-leucine in particular)
- DHEA
- Lecithin
- Tyramine
- Creatine
- ALCAR (acetyl-l-carnitine)
- Green tea extract
- CLA (Conjugated linolaic acid)
Final Thoughts
Your starting body fat % is going to have a profound effect on the overall quality mass that you will be able to gain on your cycle. Having excess body fat will decrease your overall muscle gains. This is scientific fact and not broscience. If you truly are serious about running a cycle, you now have proof on why you need to be under 15% BF before you start and to truly maximize gains you should be even lower.
Ref:
Body fat and fat-free mass inter-relationships: Forbes's theory revisited. Br J Nutr. 2007 Jun;97(6):1059-63. Epub 2007 Mar 19
Body fat content influences the body composition response to nutrition and exercise. Forbes GB. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000 May; 904:359-65.
Body composition: what's new? Kyle UG, Genton L, Pichard C. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2002 Jul; 5(4):427-33.
- Bookmark
- 49
- 0
Settling this for once
AAS USE AND THE OBESE
First of all - and toward the end of this post hopefully you will agree - a Forum for Obese people should exist, and should be a whole separate thing. I say this because after doing the research, I believe that the majority of the pushback on the overweight using AAS cycles is from very simple things, like passing along faulty data or data which has been mischaracterized or placed in a bias context, having faulty data and accepting it as truth. Accepting “everyone knows” as a reason or “Bro, are you serious?” or “You can’t…”
First, My argument is that AAS ARE BENEFICIAL for the “overweight” or obese.
I do believe the AAS/Overweight dialogue in turn, needs it’s own Forum space. I have questions like, “Can you incorporate AAS with intermittent fasting?” THAT is not a question for BBs. It’s a question for the growing population of adult males in varying degrees of health or weight, using AAS as TRT or otherwise. If you agree, “Like” this article and I might put something up. I will certainly petition CENSORED to create a separate forum for it. CENSORED and other AAS sites are beginning to carry HCG and Semaglutide, which is for weight loss, so the number of overweight people looking for answers about AAS will only increase. So, instead of discouraging overweight people from using AAS, consider referring them to a separate Forum so everyone wins.
Background.
I am overweight and about to embark on a “grown up” cycle. I have been advised against it by a grip of people on these boards. However, the studies they have cited have NOT correlated with evidence against AAS for the overweight. The following are some of the reasons cited. I should mention that MOST posts lack reasoning. They make statements in a condescending tone without offering sound, supporting data.
“You won’t gain as much [so why use AAS at all until you’re at 15%?]” is one argument. Not exactly seaworthy. Obviously any gains are worth pursuing so while they may not be as much as a thin person, a person also does not lose lean mass while on AAS if he follows a dieting protocol, which is an obvious benefit. The gains are slower that is true, but they’d be even SLOWER without AAS*, and the losses are all fat loss.
“You’ll retain more water.” Who among you has not utilized the multitudinous solutions available for water retention?
There have been many more reasons given but they lack enough merit to comment on.
Here are some real scientists:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10865771/
*“and once again the proportion of lean loss to total weight loss is greater in thin people than in those who have larger body fat burdens.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1335979/
“..It is concluded that testosterone treatment of middle-aged abdominally obese men gives beneficial effects on well-being and the cardiovascular and diabetes risk profile”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8574271/
Nandrolone decaoate = ASND “After 3 months, there was a significantly greater decrease in subcutaneous (SQ) abdominal fat in the ASOX (ASND) group compared to the TE and PL [CONTROL] groups although body weight changes did not differ by treatment group. There was also a tendency for the ASOX (ASND) group to exhibit greater losses in visceral fat, and the absolute level of visceral fat in this group was significantly lower at 3 months than in the TE and PL groups. “
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25982085/
“Testosterone replacement therapy demonstrates beneficial effects on measures of obesity that are partially explained by both direct metabolic actions on adipose and muscle and also potentially by increasing motivation, vigour and energy allowing obese individuals to engage in more active lifestyles.”
I concede that the studies above are NOT on people taking 400mg of test and 400 mgs of EQ a week. It is RARE to see a bodybuilding clinical study, mainly for economic reasons I would guess. It is extremely expensive to do a study. So these studies are on people using moderate doses of AAS but I would guess that an otherwise healthy individual would respond similarly at higher doses regardless of weight (within reason).
So what have we established?
Feedback is very welcome!
How to run a cycle while obese I like it
We could call the group: Fat men on tren
Here's your feedback:
1) AAS is not a fat burner.
2) AAS will increase your metabolism, i.e., heart rate/blood pleasure. If you are obese, as you are, you already have high blood pressure; that is a serious health risk.
3) These studies were made under a doctor's care.
4) Proper diet and exercise will increase your natural levels of Testosterone and also gives you a since of wellbeing.
5) Taking AAS without also following a strict diet and exercise will do very little for you
6) Negative side effects include and are not limited to: High cholesterol levels; Severe acne; Thinning of hair or baldness; High blood pressure; Fluid retention; Liver disorders; Sexual and reproductive disorders; High RBC (thick blood).
7) A proper high protein diet and frequent meals will also retain lean mass while losing fat.
Some of your bullet points are opinion, not fact.
Simply because there MAY be fewer benefits from taking AAS while overweight, the studies I have read all indicate AAS as quite beneficial to overweight people. Specifically, the placebo groups lose fat and lean mass while the AAS group loses fat only. The sense of well being is higher with AAS. So why advise people against it?
At least advise them for the right reasons. I'm not sure there are studies that support your above claim, but I'd bet overweight people tend to buy a bunch of AAS, buy a bunch of protein powder, and then get themselves fat by not actually going to the gym lol.
In conclusion, if a person loses fat and gains muscle with AAS, but not AS much as if he were thinner, I do not see that as an argument against using them. Maybe a lowering of expectations?
What you're missing here is that those studies are with men with low T levels and the steroids they are given keeps them within normal range. Obese men have lower T levels and lower metabolism.
In a bodybuilding cycle, the goal is to exceed your natural growth potential. The amount of Testosterone during cycle is off the charts. Literally.
You do realize what this site is and who it caters too, right?
Abnormally low T levels were not part of the study but yes, typically T levels are lower in the obese, yet another reason not to discourage AAS.
And yes, I absolutely know who this site caters to which is why I strongly suggested a separate forum for questions from people who are dieting, OR participating in sports that require a little extra poundage. I think the BB community should absolutely have it's own club BUT that shouldn't translate into discouraging overweight people not to use AAS for made up reasons or hyperbole.
They simply need to use it differently or combined with different things you may not relate to, hence, a separate forum.
If you want to use it differently, see your doctor.
Risk v reward: reward is not there enough to justify your position. But hey, who are these seasoned pros compared to your google wisdom.
You'd be better off reading and following the book, "The Testosterone Advantage Plan" before you embark on your folly. You are grossly overestimating the benefits in these studies. The real heavy lifting, even on cycle, is the diet and exercise.
If you follow the plan outlined in that book, you'll gain the skill and discipline to be able to effectively use AAS when the time is right. Without the health risks. Tell me you're not already on BP and cholesterol meds. 5' 10" and 270 lbs, you already are at risk. So, take your AAS and jump on a treadmill and let's go all in on getting that heart attack you are so desperately wanting to have.
https://www.amazon.com/Testosterone-Advantage-Plan-Weight-Muscle/dp/0743...
At a minimum, your body needs to be in condition. You should be able to run 5k without redlining your heartrate. I know this isn't the case because, well, you're 270 lbs.
gobgob2which one of these studies has to do with taking steroids and body fat?
None of them. Here you go; supports my position that AAS are beneficial for any weight person.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1335979/
Bruh YOU do not wamt to be taking AAS while being fat as fuck. Besides the muscle building aspect of it. You are seriously going to put your health if not life at risk. More so than a person who is more lean. Sure yes you will and can gain muscle. But you are 100% adding to the negatives of AAS. BF plays a role in hoe much Test is being converted to estrogen. You will be more prone to getting higher BP, water retention, blood thickening, acne, gyno, etcetera....just the shit you don't want. When you're more lean you significantly reduce the risk of negatives. Then have to combat with more drugs (AI's) which are unhealthy in itself. You won't reap the full reward of what AAS do. AAS l aren't fst burners. Seriously don't take AAS while fat. It's just a stupid idea.
No, it does not. You are suffering from confirmation bias.
I do not believe that any focus specifically on AAS use and bodyfat, but that is not the point. The point is that regardless of whether you are on or off, you want to maximize nutrient partitioning to maximize muscle gain. AAS use puts a great deal of stress on your body and comes with numerous risks. If you are going to put that stress on your body and take those risks it only makes sense to all that you can to maximize the benefits that you receive from the cycle.
Not to speak for Makwa, but I think that it is implied that this article was written from the standpoint of bodybuilding and not competitive power lifting or other strength sports that allow for higher bodyfat %s. Although everything in the article still stands true for those individuals, it isn't practical for, let's say Eddie Hall to stop his strength training to lose 150 lbs in order to get inside of 12% bodyfat just to intentionally gain it all back post cycle.
Does that provide any more clarity?
AnonPlaying the devil's advocate, those strength athletes (i always assumed) are on gear. Works for them, as long as aesthetics aren't the goal. Maybe we all should soften the message to our more portly beginners. More muscle does burn more fat, right?
I read the article. Just hitting the high points for the average Joe.
I'm still a fat POS at 17.1. Ha
THANK YOU
Quality post brother extremely helpful as always
Is it fish oil as a whole or just the dhea that's in it
I believe it the omega-3's, DHA and EPA, that provide the benefits. I believe DHEA is a metabolite of DHA.
Lol yeah I meant dha not dhea
Great post makwa
There is a law of diminish returns with most of these things, so this coupled with cyclical bulking = success
great read
Great bump and great read.
Very good read. Thank you
Love the post.....I was 30%bf when I was put on trt by my endo, After 3 months without seeing the inside of a gym I lost 20 pounds. When I started to train with my friend after 3 months I was down another 20, Now I hover at 200 and 220 depending on heavy verses light training. Everyone is different genetically so fat gain and loss will be dependant on that. Age will also play a factor. I am still over 15% bf. Its because I like to eat, Im positive I could be much less because of my genetics as everyone in my family are skinny and short and eat whatever they want. All Im saying is science is right about a lot of things but genetics and eating habits will ultimately determine your size. I am proof of that considering my endo giving me 250 a week for 3 months to start my therapy and no ai and believe it or not i had only slightly elevated e2. The more fat i have the more energy i have in the gym. I noticed I need a pwo and an intra just to last a whole hour, I also only train 1 hour a day and not 2 because my rests are short and because I limit my sets to 6 per body part for 8 to 12 reps.
I wanted to come back to this post Makwa since I think from what you have presented here it has become distorted to where I repeatedly read we must be in the single digits before we begin a cycle.
I can't argue with the science you have presented, but as with all things pertaining to AAS - for the record, I have cycled starting at a BF % over 15% and I did not turn into a blob - I gained plenty of meat and then struggled more than I should have to lean back out. I'm not that tall (5' 9") and I have bulked up to over 285 before cutting it up (successfully). I think that 15% is a good number on the high end though for just about everyone. Good post. +2
I think plenty of meat can still be put on even when starting with a higher BF%. There just appears to be more fat put on as well and then we have to go through that painful process of cutting the fat and trying to maintain as much muscle as possible.
I am sure you have noticed that rebound effect when you finish a comp at 5% and you start eating again. It seems like every ounce of food is turned into lean body mass with very little fat gained. At least that is what I noticed from my last compitition. I started putting back down 4000+ cals again and after only about 2 months after my comp I was up thirty pounds with only a 3% increase in bodyfat. I was basically back to my same weight before I started my comp prep but yet I was 4.5% less body fat. A huge increase in LBM during that short time frame of bulking. Now what I notice when I am higher bodyfat and I start eating like that I do gain lean body mass but I gain at least an equal amount of fat if not more. When I am lean and start bulking it all seems to be lean body mass gains and when I have higher bodyfat and bulk I gain a lot more fat along with the lean body mass gains and lean gains appear to be slower also.
Obviously starting a bulk from 5% or less BF is not reasonable or even going to happen for most people, but this nutrient partitioning effect seems to be the real deal, and while one may be able to put on the same total body weight whether starting a cycle at 10% or 15% BF, more of that total weight gain will likely be muscle and less fat the lower you can start your bulk, assuming all other factors like diet and training are equal.
Of course. There's nothing that can quite compare to that. And, as I've gotten older, leaning out from a super dirty bulk gets harder and harder.
Folk have taken the information in this post and twisted it into a requirement that BF be in single digits before any kind of cycle. Neither of us sees that as a requirement and that was really the only reason I chimed in here bro. Certainly not because I disagree with you.
Excellent read!
Great read brotha!
P2i2texcellent post my brother. Great info! Thank you very much for taking the obvious long time and dedication to write this. Hoping to see some more from you
Edited post with some compounds that can help improve nutrient partitioning.
RustyhookerGood update. Hope this gets stickied.
Great post Makwa, very helpful
Brother, you need to keep these posts coming. It's great for these forums.
Great post +2
Excellent Makwa. I just had this conversation with a female bodybuilder yesterday and she is around 22% bf and was wanting to do an anavar cycle, but i concvinced her to get her bf down more before starting.
Its a bit different different for women bro... they always hold more than a man, and at 22% she probably dont look too bad........ unless shes lying and really hitting 32% lol.
My Suzy is now up around 20/22% and she looks phenomenal!... but when she drops down below 5% she looks like a tranny, with a carved face and a mean look like she could remove your liver and eat it while you were still trying to figure out if she was really a woman and not a man ;/
It's impossible for a woman to go below five percent, unless she's dead.
Get that bed in the spare room made up, you might be needing it
lol....... she knows it bro, those are her words actually and she hates it when shes ripped, i like her best like she is right now with a proper feminine face and thighs like sides of beef lol
Thanks Makwa
I definitely agree with the main point of this post however IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros) holds very true and has been proven to work many times over. Someone can definitely get shredded with pizza in their diet (or any other food for that matter). You stick to your chicken and broccoli, I'll keep eating all this delicious pizza ;)
LOL............. i was going to take this further but i just cant be arsed!
If ONLY some of you fuckers knew what it takes to get truly shredded (SMFH).
I've gained bf just from reading the word pizza......
I don't subscribe to cheat meals / cheat days. I could get away with a lot more when I was 25, nowadays I have to be more disciplined.
You know at the moment i only have 125mg of sustanon in my system! nothing else.
This guy in the gym asks me if i am running tren because my veins are hanging out all over the shop..... lol didnt believe me when i explained i was simply using Mega-dose VitC to supercharge my immune system.
Made me smile ;)
You sure muddied up this thread...
You're open to practice whatever you want but IIFYM is not any sort of performance nutrition. It lacks in many departments and does not factor in hormonal optimization from strategic nutrient intake at any given time throughout the day. There's a lot of science behind performance nutrition that IIFYM does not account for in the slightest. Hard gainers need lots extra calories but there's still science behind the intake and optimizing hormonal response through food. I wouldn't put regular unleaded fuel in a Ferrari & I wouldn't fuel my body with trash calories.
Not to mention, this is an AAS forum. The compounds people are on thrash cholesterol and thicken blood. So the logical choice would be to subscribe to a dietary philosophy like IIFYM, that would amplify the negative side effects from the gear by providing someone validation that it's fine to eat that, it's in their accounted macros...All sorts of blood pressure, circulatory system, fatty liver, & inflammation issues ready to spring on an AAS user with an IIFYM approach.
Again with the surplus calorie argument, IIFYM is NOT synonymous with dirty bulking. Also, you can still apply "performance nutrition" dynamics to IIFYM. You are still under the same restraints such as a specific caloric target value, fiber intake, ect ect.. Trash calories? What a joke. Like I mentioned in my reply below, your body cannot differentiate between so called clean and so called dirty calories. You don't have to eliminate certain foods out of your life. Use moderation and your brain and enjoy that shit. Let me know when you want a hot slice of this meat lovers pizza bro
My first words were "you're free to practice what you want". So do so, I really don't mind.
No where did I imply that it's synonymous with dirty bulking. What I am implying that it is far inferior to performance nutrition. That is, it's inferior to performance nutrition in it's entirety, not just for physique enhancement. IIFYM is generally used by those who lack self control, and need to indulge a little extra to satisfy a craving. Sure, you can make physique changes with IIFYM. Not the argument. It's inferior and a poor choice, especially for users of aas. It does not account for countless metabolic process and hormonal changes induced by proper calculated, timed and executed nutrition.
It's really not an argument I care to entertain. I have absolutely nothing to prove with this subject at all and I'm not going to blow up someone else's well thought out thread with this banter. Enjoy the pizza, make sure you hit some tren with it so you can partition the extra carbs correctly. Don't worry about your cholesterol, there's meds for that.
So you state it's inferior without any backings of said claims? You generalize and make assumptions such as "IIFYM is generally used by those who lack self control, and need to indulge a little extra to satisfy a craving". You really hit the nail on the head with that one. As far as the cholesterol, don't worry.. Mines perfect. But as for the meds, what's another drug to keep on hand with the current arsenal we consume on a weekly basis in some form or another, right?
Where is your selfie mr iifym?
